CAPE OF GOOD HOPE. 



REPORT 

OF THE 

SELECT COMMITTEE 

ON THE 

PETITION OF JACOB LUME 



Printed by Order of the House of Assembly. 

NOVEMBER, 19.09. 



CAPE TOWN : 
Cape Times Limited, Government Printers. 
1909. 



4- 06] PETITION OF JACOB LUUIE. 



Qass 
Book 



CAPE OF GOOD HOPE. 



REPORT 

OF THE 

SELECT COMMITTEE 

ON THE 

PETITION OF JACOB HUE. 



Printed by Order of the House of Assembly. 

NOVEMBER. 1909. 



CAPE TOWN : 
CAPE TIMES LIMITED, GOVERNMENT PRINTERS. 
1909. 



U. 4—09 ]— PETITION OF JACOB LUPJE. 



SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE 



ORDERS OF THE HOUSE. 3 

,0 ^ 

7th October, 1909. 

Ordered : That the Petition presented to the House on the 
5th instant, from Jacob Lurie for an extension of the lease of the 
ground occupied by him and situate at Camps Bay, in the Cape 
Division, be referred to a Select Committee for inquiry and report, 
the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for Papers, 
and to consist of the Secretary for Agriculture, Messrs. Jagger, 
Vermooten, Michau Alexander, James Searle and Greer. 



13th October, 1909. 

Ordered : That the Petition from G. E. D. Orpen, styling 
himself Acting Chairman of the Cape Marine Suburbs, Limited, 
in opposition to the petition of Jacob Lurie, and praying to be 
heard against the said petition before the Select Committee 
appointed to consider the same, be referred to the Committee. 



15th October, 1909. 

Ordered : That Messrs. Runciman and J. H. Marais be 
members of the Committee. 

Ordered : That leave be granted to J. Lurie and G. E. D. 
Orpen, Acting Chairman of the Cape Marine Suburbs, Limited, to 
be heard before the Committee by their Parliamentary Agents and 
Counsel, subject to the decision of the Committee thereon. 



22nd November, 1909. 

ORDERED : That the Petition from S. Y. de Villiers and others, 
inhabitants of Camp's Bay, Cape Town and the neighbourhood, in 
support of the Petition of J. Lurie, presented to the House on the 
22nd instant, be referred to the Committee. 



n. or a 

22 1910 



PETITION OF J. LUKIE iii 



KEPORT 

OF THE 

SELECT COMMITTEE appointed by Orders of 
the House of Assembly, dated the 7th and 15th 
October. 1909, to inquire into and report upon 
the Petition of Jacob Lurie for an extension of 
the lease of the ground occupied by him and 
situate at Camp's Bay, in the Cape Division ; 
the Committee to have power to take evidence 
and call for Papers, and to consist of the 
Secretary for Agriculture, Messrs. Jagger, 
Vermooten, Michau, Alexander, J. Searle, 
Greer, Euncimax and J. H. Marais. 

/ Your Committee having taken evidence in re- 
gard ijto the Petitions of Jacob Lurie, the Cape 
Marine Suburbs, Limited, and S. Y. de Villiers and 
others, beg to report as follows : — 

\J Your Committee recommend that the Govern- 
ment be requested to take into consideration the 
-advisability of leasing the present site occupied by 
the said Jacob Lurie by public auction for a term 
not exceeding five years, upon the following con- 
ditions, viz. : — 

(1) That the site be used only for the purpose 

of refreshment rooms. 

(2) That the purchaser of the lease, if other 
than the present occupier, shall pay the 
present occupier a fair value for the ex- 
isting buildings. 

(3) That only such refreshment shall be sold 
as may be approved by the Government, 
at prices to be fixed by them, not exceed- 
ing the tariff at present used by Jacob 
Lurie. 



ft 



SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE 



(4) That the Government have the right to 
cancel the lease if the refreshment rooms 
be not properly conducted. 

F. S. MALAN, 

Chairman. 

Committee Eooms, 

House of Assembly, 

24th November, 1909. 



PETITION OP J. LURIB 



VERSLAG 

VAN HET 

GEKOZEN COMITE aangesteld door besluit van 
de Wetgevende Yergadering van 7 en 15 Octo- 
ber om onderzoek in te stellen naar en te 
rapporteeren omtrent de Petitie van Jacob 
Lurie om een verlenging van de pacht van de 
grond door hem geoccupeerd en gelegen te 
Camps Eaai in de Kaapsche Afdeeling ; het 
Comite macht te hebben getuigenis in te win- 
nen em om papieren te vragen, en te bestaan 
uit de Secretaris vooe Landbouw, de heeren 
Jagger, Yermooten, Michau, Alexander, 
James Searle, Greer, Eunciman en J. BL 
Marais. 

Uw Comite heeft getuigenis ingewonnen omtrent 
de Petities van Jacob Lurie, de Cape Marine Sub- 
urbs. Ltd., en S. Y. de Yiiliers en anderen en 
wensclit als volgt te rapporteeren : — - 

Uw Comite beveelt aan dat het Gouvernement 
verzocht worde in overweging te nemen de 
wenschelijkheid van de tegenwoordige stand- 
plaats geoccupeerd door gezegde Jacob Lurie door 
publieke veiling te verhuren voor een tijdperk 
van hoogstens vijf jaren, op de volgende voor- 
waarden :— 

(1) Dat de sta^ndplaats slechts gebruikt worde 
voor verversching kamers. 

(2) Dat de kooper van de pacht, indien iemand 
anders dan de tegenwoordige occupeerder, 
aan laatstgenoemde een billijke som betale 
voor de bestaande gebouwen. 

(3) Dat slechts zoodanige Ververschingen ver- 
kocht worden als het Gouvernement goed- 
keurt en tegen een door 't Gouvernement 

[A. 4—09.] Petition of J. Lurie. 



vi 



SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE 



vastgesteld tarief, dat niet hooger moet 
zijn dan het tegenwoordige tarief van 
Jacob Lurie. 

(4) Dat het GouVernement het recht hebbe het 
pacht-kontrakt te cancelleeren? indien 
de verversching kamers niet behoorlijk 
bestierd worden. 

F. S. MALAN, 

Yoorzitter. 

Comite Kanier. 

Wetgevende Yergadering. 
24 November 1909. 



PETITION OF J. LURIE Vll 



PROCEEDINGS OF COMMITTEE. 



Proceedings of the Select Committee, appointed by Orders 
of the House of Assembly, dated the 7th and 15th October, 
1909, to inquire into and' report upon the Petition of Jacob 
Lurie for an extension of the lease of the ground occupied by 
him and situate at Camp's Bay, in the Cape Division ; the 
Committee to have power to take evidence and call for Papers, 
and to consist of the Secretary for Agriculture, Messrs. 
Jagger, Vermooten, Michau, Alexander, J. Searle,. 
Greer, Runciman and J. H. Marais. 



Thursday, 14th October, 1909. 



PRESENT 
The Secretary for Agriculture. 
Mr. Vermooten. 
Mr. Michau. 



Mr. Alexander. 
Mr. J. Searle. 
Mr. Greer. 



Clerk read Order of the House, dated the 7th October, 1909, 
appointing the Committee. 

Resolved : That the Secretary for Agriculture be Chairman. 

Clerk read the Petition of Jacob Lurie praying for an extension 
of the lease of the ground occupied by him and situate at Camp's 
Bay. 

Clerk laid the Petition upon the Table. [Appendix A.] 

Clerk read Order of the House, dated the 13th instant, referring 

to the Committee the Petition of G. E. D. Orpen, Acting Chairman 

of the Cape Marine Suburbs, Ltd., in opposition to the prayer of 

the Petition of J. Lurie. 

Clerk laid the Petition upon the Table. [Appendix B.] 

The Committee deliberated, and adjourned until Monday at 

11.30 a.m. 



Monday, 18th October, 1909. 



PRESENT : 

Secretary for Agriculture (Chairman). 



Mr. Vermooten 
Mr. J. Searle 



Mr. Runciman. 



Clerk read Order of* the House, dated the 15th instant, that 
Messrs. Runciman and J. H. Marais be members of the committee. 

Clerk read a further Order of the House, dated the 15th 
instant, that leave be granted to J. Lurie and G. E. D. Orpen, 
Acting Chairman of the Cape Marine Suburbs, Limited, to be 
heard before the Committee by their Parliamentary Agents and 
Counsel, subject to the decision of the Committee thereon. 

Resolved : That the Parliamentary Agents be permitted to be 
present and produce evidence before the Committee. 
. The Committee deliberated, and adjourned until Thursday, at 
11 a.m. 



Vlll SELECT COMMITTEE OK THE 



Thursday, 21st October, 1909. 



PRESENT : 

The Secretary for Agriculture (Chairman). 

Mr. J. Searle. 



Mr. Jagger. 
Mr. Verrnooten. 
Mr. Michau. 
Mr. Alexander. 



Mr. Greer. 
Mr. Runciman. 
Mr. J. H. Marais. 



Mr. van der Byl, Parliamentary Agent, appeared on behalf of 
J. Lurie. 

Mr. Wahl (of the firm of Messrs. Wahl, Fuller and de Klerk, 
Parliamentary Agents), appeared on behalf of the Cape Marine 
Suburbs, Ltd. 

Mr. Jacob Lurie, of Camp's Bay, was examined, and put in : — 

(1) Tracing of foreshore at Camp's Bay. 

(2) Letter from the Department of Agriculture, dated 9th 
January, 1902, granting permission to Mr. Lurie to 
open refreshment rooms at Camp's Bay. 

(3) Letter from the Cape Marine Suburbs, Ltd., dated 
27th January, 1902, warning Mr. Lurie to remove two 
tents erected by him at Camp's Bay, 

(4) Copy of lease, dated 14th July, 1904, between the Civil 
Commissioner of the Cape and Jacob Lurie, leasing 
to the latter certain lot of land for a period of five 
years, at a rental of £62 per annum. 

(5) Copy of Additional Lease, dated 15th October, 1905, 
between the Civil Commissioner of the Cape and Jacob 
Lurie, leasing to the latter certain additional land at a 
rental of £24 per annum. wojaAal, 

(6) Plan - showing portion of Camp's Bay foreshore, 
between Victoria Road and the sea-line, owned by the 
Camp's Bay Tramway Company. 

(7) Extract from the Gazette, dated 29th August, 1905, 
advertising the lease of the land occupied until then 
by Mr. Lurie. 

The Reverend David Pieter Faure, resident of Camp's Bay, and 
Mr. Johannes Combrink, Field-cornet, Camp's Bay, were 
examined. 

The Committee deliberated, and adjourned until Monday at 
10.30 a.m. 



Monday, 25th October, 1909. 



PRESENT : 

The Secretary for Agriculture (Chairman). 



Mr. Jagger. 
Mr. Michau. 
Mr. Alexander. 
Mr. J. Searle. 



Mr. Greer. 
Mr. Runciman. 
Mr. J. H. Marais. 



Mr. van der Byl, Parliamentary Agent, appeared on behalf of 
J. Lurie. 



PETITION OF J. LURIE 



ix 



Mr. Wahl (of the firm of Messrs. Wahl, Fuller and de Klerk, 
Parliamentary Agents) appeared on behalf of the Cape Marine 
Suburbs, Ltd. 

Mr. Edmund William McLachlan Thomas, Incorporated Accoun- 
tant, Cape Town, was examined, and put in : 

(1) Contract for labour, dated September, 1904, for erection 
of Mr. Lurie's building, with statement of account in 
in connection Therewith. 

(2) Tender from Messrs. J. Omand & Company, dated 19th 
August, 1901, for erection of building. 

(3) Statement of vouchers produced for disbursements on 
account ol erection of building. 

Mr. Jacob Lurie, of Camp's Bay, was further examined. 
Mr. James Riddell Farquhar, Secretary, Cape Marine Suburbs, 
Ltd., was examined, and put in : 

(1) Letter, dated 19th December, 1901, from Mr. Lurie, 
applying for the lease of the Pagoda at Camp's Bay. 

(2) Copy of letter, dated 13th January, 1902, in reply 
thereto. 

(3) Copy of letter, dated 11th February, 1902, from Messrs. 
Silberbauer, Wahl & Fuller, to the Surveyor-General, 
re proposed purchase of certain land at Camp's Bay by 
the Cape Marine Suburbs, Ltd. 

(4) Letter, dated 18th February. 1902, from the Surveyor- 
General, in reply thereto. 

During the examination of the witness, Mr. van der Byl put in 
eopy of letter, dated 30th April, 1904, from Mr. Lurie to the 
General Manager, Cape Marine Suburbs, Ltd., regarding suggested 
removal of Mr. Lurie's building to another site. 

The Committee deliberated, and adjourned until Wednesday, 
3rd:November, 1909, at 10.30 a.m. 



Wednesday, 3rd November, 1909. 



PRESENT : 

The Secretary for Agriculture (Chairman). 

Mr. Jagger. Mr. J. Searle, 

Mr. Yermooten. Mr. Runciman. 

Mr. Michau. Mr. J. H. Marais. 

Mr. Van der Byl, Parliamentary Agent appeared on behalf of 
J. Lurie. 

Mr. Wahl (of the firm of Messrs. Wahl, Fuller and de Klerk, 
Parliamentary Agents) appeared on behalf of the Cape Marine 
Suburbs, Limited. 

In the absence of the Chairman. 
Resolved : That Mr. Michau take the Chair. 
Mr. Athelstan Hall Cornish-Bowden, Surveyor-General, was 
examined and put in 

(1) Correspondence regarding improvements to Lurie's 
premises and building. 



X 



SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE 



(2) Copy of Agreement between the Civil Commissioner, 
Cape, and the Secretary of the Cape Marine Suburbs, 
Limited, in regard to right to leave standing on fore- 
shore at Camp's Bay, two bathing houses and pump 
house. 

(3) Plan of the Brighton Estate, Camp's Bay. 

(4) Copy of agreement between the Civil Commissioner, 
Cape, and Jacob Lurie, on the subject of lease of Crown 
land at Camp's Bay. 

During the examination of the witness the Chairman entered 
the room and Mr. Michau vacated the Chair. 

Mr. van der Byl put in certain correspondence relating to the 
contravention of conditions of lease of refreshment room site at 
Camp's Bay. 

The Committee deliberated and adjourned until Wednesday, 
at 11 a.m. 



Wednesday, 10th November, 1909. 



PRESENT : 

The Secretary for Agriculture- (Chairman). 

Mr. Jagger. Mr. J. Searle. 

Mr. Yermooten. Mr. Greer. 

Mr. Michau. Mr. Runciman. 

Mr. Alexander. 

Clerk read and laid upon the Table copy of a Memorandum? 
•dated the 10th August, 1907, by the Surveyor-General, on the sub- 
ject of Mr. Lurie's occupation of a site at Camp's Bay. 

Clerk read and laid upon the Table copies of certain Corres- 
pondence, forwarded by the Surveyor-General, on the subject of 
the contravention of conditions of lease of refreshment room site 
at Camp's Bay, 

Mr. Jagger moved : That the site on which the petitioner's 
pagoda stands be not leased again, and that he be allowed to 
remain in occupation of the present site for six months on the same 
terms as heretofore. 

After discussion, 

The Committee deliberated, and adjourned until Friday, at 12 
noon. 



Friday, 12th November, 1909. 



PRESENT : 

The Secretary for Agriculture (Chairman). 



Mr. Jagger, 
Mr. Yermooten. 
Mr. Michau. 
Mr. Alexander. 



Mr. J. Searle. 
Mr. Greer. 
Mr. Runciman. 
Mr. J. H. Marais. 



The Committee resumed consideration of Mr. Jagger's motion, 
standing over. 



PETITION OF J. LUBJE 



xi 



After discussion, 

The motion proposed by Mr. Jagger was withdrawn. 

Mr. Runciman then moved : That Mr. Lurie be allowed to- 
remain in occupation of the present site until the 31st December. 
1910, at a nominal rental of £1 per month from the 1st Decem- 
ber. 1909. on the same conditions as heretofore. 

Resolved : That this motion stand over for further considera- 
tion. 

The Committee deliberated, and adjourned until Tuesday, at 
10 a.m. 



Friday. 19th November. 1909. 



PRESEXT : 

The Secretary for Agriculture (Chairman). 

Mr. Jagger. Mr. Greer. 

Mr. Michau. Mr. Runciman. 

Mr. Alexander. Mr. J. H. Marais. 

Mr. J. Searle. 

Clerk read Orders of the House, dated the 15th and 17th instants, 
that the Committee, which had adjourned until Tuesday, the 16th 
instant, at 10 a.m.. meet on Friday at 10 a.m. 

The Committee resumed consideration of 'Sir. Runcimans 
motion, standing over : 

The Committee deliberated, and adjourned until Tuesdav, at 
10-30 a.m. 



Tuesday, 23rd November. 1909, 



Present : 

The secretary for Agriculture (Chairman). 



Mr. Jagger. 
Mr. Yermooten. 
Mr. Michau. 
Mr. Alexander. 



Mr. J. Searle. 
Mr. Greer. 
Mr. Runciman. 
Mr. J. H. Marais. 



Mr. van der Byl, Parliamentary Agent, appeared on behalf of 
J. Lurie. 

Mr. Wahl (of the firm of Messrs. Wahl, Fuller, and De Klerk r 
Parliamentary Agents), appeared on behalf of the Cape Marine 
Suburbs. Limited. 

Clerk read Order of the House, dated the 22nd instant, that the 
Petition from S. Y. de Yilliers and others, inhabitants of Camp's 
Bay. Cape Town, and the neighbourhood, in support of the Petition 
of J. Lurie, presented to the House on the 22nd instant, be referred 
to the Committee. 

Clerk read and laid the Petition upon the Table. [Appendix C] 

Mr. Robert Paul Loftus Wahl. Parliamentary Agent, was 
examined. 



xii 



SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE 
PETITION OF J. LURIE 



The Parliamentary Agents having withdrawn, 
The Committee deliberated, and adiourned until to-morrow at 
10-30 a.m. 



Wednesday, 24th November, 1909. 



PRESENT : 

Secretary for Agriculture (Chairman). 
Mr. Jagger. Mr. J. Searle. 



Mr. Vermooten. 
Mr. J. J. Michau. 
Mr. Alexander. 



Mr. Greer. 

Mr. J. H. Marais. 



The Committee resumed consideration of Mr. Runciman's 
motion standing over. 

Resolved : That the Parliamentary Agents be now heard, and 
Mr. Wahl and Mr. van der Byl thereupon addressed the Com- 
mittee, Mr. Wahl putting in correspondence between himself 
and Mr. van der Byl. [Appendix D.] 

The Parliamentary Agents having withdrawn, 

Mr. Greer moved, as an amendment to Mr. Runciman's motion : 
That the lease be put up for public auction on the same conditions 
as in the year 1904. 

The amendment was put, 

Upon which the Committee divided : 

Ayes — 6. Noes — 2. 

The Secretary for Agriculture. Mr. Jagger. 

Mr. Vermooten. Mr. J. Searle. 

Mr. Michau. 
Mr. Alexander. 
Mr. Greer. 
Mr. J. H. Marais. 

Amendment accordingly agreed to, and the motion moved by 
Mr. Runciman dropped. 

The Chairman submitted a Draft Report, which was considered 
and adopted. 

Resolved : That the Chairman report accordingly. 



IKUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



SELECT COMMITTEE OX PETITION OF 
J. LUEIE. 



Thursday, 21st October. 1909. 



PEESEXT : 



The Seceetaey foe Ageicultuee (Chairman). 



Mr. van der Byi, Parliamentary Agent, appeared 
■on behalf of J. Lurie. 

Mr. ^Vahl (of the firm of Messrs. Wahl, Fuller 
and de Klerk. Parliamentary Agents), appeared 
on behalf of the Cape Marine Suburbs, Ltd. 



1. Mr. van der Byl (through the Chairman).] Mr - J^i™* 
You are the Petitioner in this matter ? — Yes. Oct. 21, 1909. 

2. You are applying for a further extension of 
your lease 'at Camp's Bay or some security of 
tenure in respect of the building you have erected ? 
— Yes. 

3. Will you tell the Committee how you first 
came to set up business there ? — As soon as the 
tramway opened, I went out there several times 
and looked round. I saw there was no refresh- 
ment room there, and a few weeks later I came to 
the conclusion that it would be a good thing to 
open one. I made inquiries from the people 
around there, such as motormen and guards who 
were working there, and was told that the ground 

[A. 4— '09.] Petition of J. Lurie. . b 



Mr. Jagger. 
Mr. Yermooten. 
Mr. Michau. 
Mr. Alexander 



Mr. J. Searle. 
Mr. Greer. 
Mr. Buciman. 
Mr. J. H. Marais. 



Mr. J. Lurie, examined. 



2 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT 



Mr. j. Lurie. had been bought by the Tramway Company. I 
Oct. 2iT i! 09. saw Mr. Farquhar, and asked him if I could hire 
or buy a piece of land at Camp's Bay. 
and he replied, 44 No," yery shortly. He refused 
me, and so I left. Afterwards I thought, 44 Is it 
possible that all the land should belong to the 
Tramway Company," and I went to the Surveyor- 
General's Office, to look at the maps and see if 
there was any private land there. I found that 
some of the land belonged to the Crown. I asked 
the clerk in the office to give me a sketch, and he 
sai,d it was an old map and that it would be 
advisable for me to go to the Tramway Company's 
surveyors. I went up and saw a Mr. de Villiers, 
and explained the matter to him, and asked for a 
sketch, which he gave me, which I now put in. 

[Witness put in tracing of foreshore of Camp's 
Bay.] 

4. What did you do then ?— I went to the 
Government and asked for permission to open a 
place, and was told to make application in writ- 
ing, which I did. Mr. Tooke asked me to bring' 
him the sketch, which I did ; and several weeks 
later I received the permission. 

5. Chairman.'] From whom did you get the per- 
mission ? — From the Agricultural Department. 

6. Mr. van der Byl (through the Chairman).] 
That was on the 9th of January, 1902 ? — I applied 
on the 10th December, just after the tramway 
opened, and on the 9th of January I received a 
letter from the Department of Agriculture, signed 
by Mr. Tooke, Under-Secretary for Agriculture, 
giving me permission to occupy a site for refresh- 
ment rooms, which letter I now put in. 

[Witness put in letter.] 

7. What did you do on getting this permission ? 
— I then put up a couple of tents before starting 
building, and a few weeks later I received a letter 
from Mr. Farquhar, dated the 27th January, 1902, 
instructing me to remove the tents. This letter I 
also put in. 

[Witness put in letter.] 



COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION OF J. LURIE 



8. In the petition which has been presented Mr. .j. Lmie. 
against your petition a great point is made by the , , t. n, i9oo. 
Cape Marine Suburbs, Ltd., that your petition 

is incorrect in stating that you applied to the 
Tramway Company for the ground, because they 
could not possibly have owned it. This letter of 
the 17th January is written you on the letter 
heading of the Camp's Bay Tramway Company, 
Limited, which name has been crossed through by 
a faint impression of a rubber stamp reading, 
"The Cape Marine Suburbs, Ltd." As far as you 
knew they were one and the same Company ? — I 
knew nothing except that it was called the Camp's 
Bay Tramway Company. 

9. When you got that letter did you go and see 
any one about it ? — Mr. David Tennant was then 
my lawyer, and he answered that I was on my 
own ground and should not be interfered with. 
At the same time I went to Mr. Tooke, in the 
Agricultural Department, who had signed my first 
permission. I told him that my permission stated 
that I was liable to be given a month's notice to 
quit, and asked him how I could build under those 
circumstances. Mr. Tooke said, " You never need 
fear that ; as long as you keep your place respectable 
you will not be interfered with." I thanked him 
and I left. I was very jneased to hear that, and 
so I went and started to build at once. 

10. Chairman,'] Did he give you that in 
writing? — No. I never thought of such difficulties 
as this arising. If I had known all the difficulties 
that would arise I should not have come to Camp's 
Bay. 

11. Mr. J. H. Marais.] On the strength of that 
verbal assurance you started building ? — Yes, 

12. Mr. 3Iichau.] Did you not reply to the Com- 
pany's letter ? — Mr. David Tennant did so, saying: 
that I was on my own ground and that they should 
be careful not to interfere with me. 

13. Mr van der By I (through the Chairman.)] In 
August, 1902, you received notice to quit at the 
end of twelve months ? — Yes ; eight months after 

B 2 



4 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT 



Mr. j. Lime. I had built I received notice from the Government . - 
Oct 2T 1909. that my tenancy would cease at the end of twelve 
months. I made representations to the Govern- 
ment, explaining my position, and Sir John Frost 
promised to go and see for himself. Sir John 
Frost and Mr. Green came out and looked out. I 
did not know that it was Sir John Frost, but I 
thought it was, and when they were going away I 
spoke to him and explained my position. He 
replied, u All right ; I will let you stay another 
twelve months/' I thanked him. and I was very 
careful then and asked him if I could have it in 
writing. He said he would see that that was 
done. I have here a newspaper cutting and 
several picture postcards, showing the place I first 
put up and the present building. 

11. In December, 1903, you were again notified 
that at the end of twelve months you would have 
to leave ? — Yes. 

15. I believe you presented to the Government a 
petition signed by a great many people ? — Yes, I 
sent in a petition, signed by 2,000 or 3,000 people, 
that the Government should allow me to remain 
as before. 

16. And then you remained on until February, 
1904, when you again received notice to quit ? — 

Y^es. 

17. They were considering the matter after your 
petition went in, and in February, 1904, they told 
y r ou to quit ; and in March, 1904, they made an 
application to Court ? — Yes, they made application 
to Court to eject me. 

18. You explained the matter to the Court, and 
they thought it was a hardship. They had to make 
the" Order, but they stayed execution for three 
months in order to enable you to approach Parlia- 
ment ? — Yes. 

i 9. You approached Parliament, and it was then 
decided to put up to auction the lease of the place 
for a period of five years, the successful tenderer 
to pay you out the value of your buildings then 
existing ? — Yes. 



COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION OF J. LURIE 



20. The lease was sold by public auction, and Mr, j. Lime, 
your bid of £62 per annum was the highest. - ,.., t . 2T 1999. 
that the Government entered into a lease with you 

for five years ? — Yes. I put in a copy of the lease 
which I entered into on the 14th July, 1904, for a 
period of five years at £62 per annum. 

[Witness put in copy of lease.] 

21. In August. 1904, ycu w T ished to get better 
accommodation ; the accommodation was not good 
enough for the public, and you wished to provide 
better ? — Yes. 

22. Who did you see in regard to that ? — On the 
27th August I saw Mr. Fuller. 

23. Mr. Fuller w T as then Secretary for Agricul- 
ture ? — Yes. I explained to him that I wanted to 
rebuild my premises, and as the actual land was 
so small in extent and I wanted to enlarge my 
place, I asked for permission to have a little more 
space, in order to make verandahs. He said, " You 
may do that, but I would not advise you to spend 
too much money ; times are too bad." He gave 
me permission to occupy more land. 

24. Mr. J agger.'] Did you get it in writing ? — I 
did not think of it. 

25. Why did you think of it in the case of Sir 
John Frost and not with Mr. Fuller ? — [No 
answer.] 

26. Chairman.'] Was the interview with Mr. 
Fuller subsequent to your entry into this lease ? — 
It was in August. I had already bought the lease. 
I got the consent of Mr. Fuller in August, and 
started building in September. 

27. Mr. van der Byl (through the Chairman.)] In 
December, 1904, the question was raised by the 
Agricultural Department about this additional 
land ?— Yes. 

28. And an arrangement was made by which 
you were charged an extra £24 per annum ? — Yes. 
There was an additional lease entered into to that 
effect, dated the 15th February, 1905, copy of which 
I put in. 

[Witness handed in copy of additional lease.] 



6 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT 



Mr. ^Lrare. 29. Then in July, 1905, your lease was cancelled 
Oct 21 loco by Colonel Crewe, who was acting for Mr. Fuller ? 

' —Yes. 

30. The reason being that you had sold certain 
articles to campers out there which they had not 
consumed on the premises ? — Yes. 

31. A condition of the lease was that you should 
only use the land for refreshment room purposes ? 
Did you take it that that stopped you from selling 
things to campers out there to use in their camp- 
ing houses ? — They could not get the things else- 
where, and I obliged them when they wanted 
things, although I had not a regular shop. If 
they were short of bread I sold some to them. 

32. At all events did you go to the Cape Govern- 
ment Railway Kef reshment Rooms and buy similar 
articles from there ? — Yes, and I took those articles 
to Colonel Crewe and showed them to him. 

33. You thought you could not, do better than 
selling from your own refreshment rooms what 
the Government sold from theirs ? — Exactly. 

34. Have you ever knowingly broken any of the 
conditions of your lease ? — No. 

35. Representations have been made from time 
to time, as you know, by persons petitioning 
against you, that you have broken them ? — Yes. 

36. And you have continually had letters from 
Government with regard to that ? — Yes. 

37. The only question was the construction of 
the term u refreshments " ? — Yes. 

38. When Colonel Crewe took up that attitude, 
you agreed to accept his construction of the term, 
namely, that the articles were to be consumed on 
the premises, and since then that is all you have 
sold ?— Yes. 

39. Have the Tramway Company themselves 
occupied any portion of Government ground ? — 
— They occupy Government land for their engine 
houses and places where the Kafirs live. 

40. Those places and the pumping plant for 
getting up their water are all on Government 
ground ? — Yes. 



COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION OF J. Ll'RIE 



7 



41. The great point is made that you have Mr- J^Me. 
ground which is much more advantageous than 0c t. 21, 190& 
any of that the Tramway Company themselves 

have. As a matter of fact the Tramway Company 
themselves have ground on the lower side of the 
road very similar to yours ? — They have a hundred 
time more. I put in a plan of the foreshore, 
running parallel to the sea line of which is a line 
showing the portion of the foreshore between 
Victoria Eoad and the sea which is owned by the 
Tramway Company. 

[Witness put in plan.] 

42. You have been there all these years, and 
what has the place cost you ? — I have been there 
eight years and have spent £1.500 011 it. 

43. Mr. Greer. .] You have spent on the build- 
ing- £1,500 in cash ? — Yes. 

44. Mr. van der Byl (through the Chairman).] 
You live there and support your father and wife ? 
— Yes, and also my sister's children, who are 
orphans. 

45. You are their sole means of support ? — Yes. 

46. When you first went there the trams always 
stopped at your door ? —Yes, and since they have - 
built the Pavilion they have made that the ter- 
minus and they will not take up or discharge 
passengers at my place. 

47. A person going there from Cape Town has 
to get off at the Pavilion ? — Yes, and walk a long 
way back to my place. If there is wind or rain 
perhaps they cannot get to my place and must go 
to the Pavilion. 

48. You also applied to them for electric light 
rind water ?— Yes. I applied verbally for electric 
light and in writing for water, and they would 
not supply me. Mr. Farquhar told me I could 
not expect them to supply me with water, and he 
said to me. We can make your existence impos- 
sible there." 

49 Have you had complaints from others than 
the Cape Marine Suburbs or the Tramway Com- 



8 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT 



Mr. j. Liuie. pany with regard to the way you conduct your 
Oct. 21, 1909. business ? — As far as I know, I have only "had 
praise from everyone, from the humblest working 
man to the highest Parliamentary officials and 
Ministers. Even on the Bench Judge Buchanan 
said the same. 

50. Your own personal opinion is thai it is in 
the interests of the public ? — My place adds to the 
beauty of Camp's Bay, instead of being an eye-sore. 

51. Chairman.'] Where do you get you water ? — 
The Divisional Council have a tank higher up, 
where we get the waste water. I have tanks of 
my own for rain water, and if I am short my men 
take the waste water from the Divisional Council 
tanks. Mr. Farquhar objected to my men doing 
this. 

52. In five years you have paid the Government 
£430?— Yes. 

53. You have no other means of livelihood but 
this ? — Xo ; this is the only business I have at 
present to support myself. I have been there for 
eight years and established myself, and have 
nothing else in view and have no money for any- 
thing else. 

54. You have spent all your savings on your 
building? — Yes, and have often worked like a 
Kafir. 

55. Are you desirous of obtaining a long lease of 
the premises, or if Government will allow it, to 
purchase the ground ? — I thought I was entitled to 
some just consideration from the Government to 
allow me to remain there with less trouble than I 
have had during the last eight years. I have 
always been between the devil and the deep sea 
with the Tramway Company and the Government 
— the Tramway Company being the "devil." 

56. Mr. Wahl (through the Chairman).] Just tell 
the Committee, as a fact, whose water it is that 
you use ? — I use the water from the roofs. 

57. You told us just now you went up the hill 
and got it. and you tried to mislead about the 
Divisional Council. Do you not know, as a matter 



COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION OF J. LURIE 9 . 

of fact, that all that water is the property of the Mr. j.jLwfe. 
Company, and costs them thousands of pounds a 0c t. 21,1m 
year ? — 1 have offered to pay Mr. Farquhar what- 
ever he charges me for it. 

58. Do you as a matter of fact, pay one penny 
for the water you use ? — Xo, I do not pay. I 
offered to pay. and they refused it. 

59. Has your man ever been prosecuted for 
helping himself — "stealing - ' is the word which 
might be used — to the wood on the Company's 
property, or has he only received warning ? — He 
has not been prosecuted that I know of. 

60. Your cows graze on the Company's property, 
and you manage to keep them there by virtue of 
the Company allowing it. without paying a penny ? 
— Yes. but I feed my cows. 

61. Have you since satisfied yourself that the 
Cape Marine Suburbs is the owner of the land, 
and not the Tramway Company ? — I do not know 
which it is. 

62. And that it owned the land before the Camp's 
Bay Tramway Company existed? — I only know 
what I have learnt from the protesting petition. 

63. You have never seen the notice boards at 
Camp's Bay ? — I have seen those erected by the 
Cape Marine Suburbs. 

64. Why did you not give the facts to the House 
as known to you ? — I do not see any material 
difference whether it belongs to the Cape Marine 
Suburbs or the Tramway Company. 

65. You did know the truth before you peti- 
tioned ? — They are all the same people. 

66. You say you went to Camp's Bay after the 
tramway was opened, and you saw no provision 
for supplying the public with refreshments, and 
that is why you took this place ? — Yes. 

67. Will you give the Committee the date when 
you eanie "to the resolution to do this on finding 
there was no other arrangement made ? — At the 
end of November or the beginning of December. 



10 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT 



Mr. j^Lnrie. 68. Did you not see what was the Pagoda being 
Oct, 21, 1909. erected by the Cape Marine Suburbs, Ltd., exactly 

opposite the place where you were ? — It is a wood 

opposite where I am. 

69. The Pagoda was a large, partly open-air 
building, which was erected under the shade of 
the fir trees for the supply of refreshments to the 
public, and that was being built at the time you 
first went there ? — I do not know that. 

70. You are surely not so ignorant of all the 
ceremony which took place at the opening of the 
Pagoda. The Pagoda was opened on the very day 
that permission was first given to you. namely, 
the 9th January ? — That may be. 

71. The Pagoda was actually finished and opened 
with great ceremony on that day ? — I will not say 
that, but I think I was opened first, because there 
was nowhere where people could get anything to 
drink. 

72. The public were being supplied at the Pagoda 
with these refreshments ? — It may be. I know to 
my knowledge I was the first to cater for the 
public. 

73. You were the first to cater for the public ? — 
As far as I know. 

74. This Pagoda is so hidden, is it ? — I have 
known it since, but in the beginning when I 
applied to Government I did not see any Pagoda 
there. 

75. Before it was opened you did not know it 
was going to be opened ? — Very likely I knew a 
few days or weeks before. 

76. Do you remember making an application in 
writing for the position of manager to that Pagoda, 
before you received your permission from the 
Government, and the reply was given in writing 
the day after the Pagoda was opened, although 
you already knew, as a matter of fact, that Mr. 
Lynch had got the position ? — I can remember 
something of that. 

77. Did you or did you not apply to the Com- 
pany for the position of manager ? — I applied to 



COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION OF J. LURIE 11 

the Government for permission and I had no Mr. j. Lime, 
answer, and in the meantime I must have heard 0ct 2 ~ 1909. 
that they were going to open a Pagoda, and I did 
apply about the end of December to hire the 
Pagoda. 

78. You received a reply from the Company, 
dated the 10th January, refusing your applica- 
tion ? — Yes, which was after 1 had my permission 
from the Government. 

79. At all events when you built your place the 
Pagoda was in full swing, and the public were 
being supplied daily, and every one going to 
Gamp's Bay went to the Pagoda ? — Yes. I daresay. 

80. You put up your place in opposition to it ? — 
I had my permission. 

81. The Pagoda was built upon private ground, 
and not upon Government ground ? — I suppose so. 

82. Is it within your knowledge that the Pagoda 
had to close down eventually and is standing 
empty at the present day ? — Yes. the reason being 
that they did not treat people nicely. 

83. Do you allege that the tariff was any diffe- 
rent to yours ? — I do not know. 

84. Mr MicJiau.} Were they charging more than 
you ? — I did not interfere with their business 
at all. 

85. Mr. Wahl (through the Chairman).] At all 
events, you can give no reasons why they closed 
down ? — I do not know their business. 

86. You said you got these notices to quit from 
the Government on several occasions ? — Yes. 

87. Was not the chief complaint against you the 
fact that you were actually selling groceries, etc. ? 
— All the previous notices gave no reason, but the 
last one did. 

88. From time to time you did get notices cancel- 
ling the lease ? — For no reason whatever. 

89. You told the Committee you only sold what 
the Government sells at its refreshment rooms at 
the station, and that is what you told Colonel 
Crewe when you got further permission ? — Yes. 



12 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT 



Mr. j. Lurie. 90. Did you not, as a matter of fact, sell groceries 
Oct 21, 1909. without taking out a general dealer's licence, and 
managed to avoid being prosecuted as other people 
are ? — I have always had a General Dealer's Licence 
on my premises since I started business. 

91. By what right then, if that is a fact, did you 
carry on a general dealer's business in contraven- 
tion of the conditions of your lease ? — Refresh- 
ments came under the general dealer's licence in 
those times. 

92. I will put it in this way : when the General 
Dealer's Act came into force did you claim that 
you were at that time carrying on business as a 
general dealer ?-No, but under the general dealer's 
licence I ^vas able to sell everything — refreshments, 
tobacco, fruit. 

93. Do you know of complaints against your 
selling candles ? Do the Government refreshment 
rooms sell candles ? — I did not sell them, but if a 
man wanted a candle at night I gave him one, or 
perhaps sold him one. 

94. Why did you not refer him to the nearest 
shop ? — There was none near by. 

95. Mr. Jagger. ] Is there a shop where he could 
buy candles ? — Yes. At that time the shop was 
half-a-mile away on the hill, and was closed. 

96. Mr. Wahl (through the Chairman). You sold 
eggs and butter ? — Yes, if people wanted them. 

97. Do you really think that that does not affect 
the other dealers in the vicinity ? — I think com- 
petition is a good thing, because it means that they 
must give the public better treatment. 

98. On that occasion when you petitioned the 
House, your position up to that time had been that 
you were not entitled to compensation if you had 
to leave ? — The lease says so. 

99. Have you at- any time had tenure on any 
other terms — that is, that you shall be entitled to 
condensation ? — No. 

100. And yet when this site was put up to 
auction any other person getting the place had to 
pay you £450 compensation ? — It was only rea- 
sonable. 



COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION OF J. LURIE 



13 



101. Anyone wanting to buy that lease had to Mr. j. Lurie. 
pay you £450 ? — Yes, for my improvements. 0c t. n, 1909. 

102. You say in your petition that you had per- 
mission to take a little extra ground for a stoep 
and verandahs. Will you tell me whether I am 
correct or not in saying that the additional ground 
you took possession of, and which Government 
afterwards wrote you about, was very much more 
than your verandahs, so that you now occupy 
over 10,000 square feet of the beach instead of 
900 square feet ? — I have made no encroachment 
whatever. I certainly occupy more, but I have a 
lease for it, and pay for it. 

103. Mr. Jagger.] What is the size of the area 
you occupy now ? — It is 87 feet by 115 feet. 

104. Mr. Wahl (through the Chairman).] You are 
entitled to six roods, are you not ? — I am entitled 
to what I have at present. 

105. You are occupying seventy roods instead of 
six ? — I pay for it. 

106. At the date this area was put up for public 
competition, when £450 had to be paid out to you, 
it was for a site 30 feet by 30 feet ? — Yes. 

107. And since then, although the Government 
may have imposed some additional rental, you 
have actually occupied over 10,000 square feet 
instead of 900, and that extent has not been put 
up for public auction ? — Not that I know of. 

108. Mr. Michau.'] You have nothing to do with 
that ? — No ; that is not my business. 

109. Mr. Wahl (through the Chairman).] You 
say you have spent £1.500 on your building. Is 
that your present building ? — Yes. 

110. Will you kindly tell the Committee what 
you paid for labour and what the material cost ? — 
I cannot give you that. 

111. It was built by contract, which was £105 
for labour, and the architect's certificate covered 
another £50, so that it cost you £155 for the build- 
ing of it. You got the wood on bond, the price of 
which is known. Is that the case or not ?— I 
cannot give you the actual figures. 



14 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT 



Mr. j. Lurie. 112. Did you pay for the contract for building 
Oct. 2iii909. that place the total on the architect's certificate, 

namely £155 ? — I cannot remember exactly what I 

paid. 

113. Could you tell the Committee the cost of 
the material ? — I cannot recollect. 

114. You say you saw the then Secretary for 
Agriculture, Mr. Fuller, and asked for an exten- 
sion of space in 1904, and he advised you not to 
spend too much money. That must have been 
immediately before you built the present place ; 
the following month you started on this place ? — 
Yes. 

115. So you do not pretend that you were mis- 
lead by the Government into putting up this 
building, when you knew you were not entitled 
to compensation and actually had the personal 
advice of the Secretary for Agriculture not to 
spend too much money on the place ? — No. 

116. You know that ground was offered for sale 
by the Cape Marine Suburbs, Ltd., by public auc- 
tion, as sites for shops and refreshment places as 
well ?— Yes. 

117. Did you bid ? — This was fifteen months 
after I was established in a small place. 

118. This was at the time you held a short 
tenure ? — Yes. 

119. Did you attempt to buy ground ? — Yes. I 
was at the sale, but could see it was a faked sale, 
and I did not bid. 

120. Do you remember your lease being cancelled 
on one occasion by the Government for contra- 
vention of the conditions and its being put up for 
public tender ? — It was not cancelled for contra- 
vention of the conditions, but without any reason 
whatever. No one can prove that. It was then 
put up to public tender. 

121. That was in 1904 ?— Something like that. 

122. Did you tender at that time ? — Yes. 

123. Could you give the Committee the con- 
ditions on which the public had to tender for the 
lease at the time ? They were published in the 
newspapers ? — I do not remember them at all. 



Z '. 30CT7Z Z 1 >" THZ r 1 3 - 1 - . - r '. - 7 17 - IZ 



124. Do von know that others did tender ? — I J. L«ri& 



daresav so. 

125. At all events, it was withdrawn the day 
before the tenders were dne in — Yes : they could 
see it was injustice to call for tenders to sell to 
other people what I had worked 2J years for. 

126. Ton say you have paid about £400 to the 
Government in that time ? — Yes, 

127. How will the money you have paid the 
Government in these, ehrht years compare ~lth the 
rent that the lessee of the Pavilion opposite vh: 
stands on private ground, has had to pay for the 
bare ground ? — I cannot say that. 

12>. You know, as a matter of fact, that ie 
Company built, in addition to the Pagoda, a lame 
Pavilion -—A white elephant. 7--. 

129. You know that that Pavilion wa- leaded to 

merit ' hne ?— YeY."^ " ^ ' 

130. And you know he was unable to earn a 
living •: :• Lav hi- expenses, much less mm - — 
Which lessee ? 

131. Take the last out — Mrs. Grime' 
know her lease lapsed on the 31st July 

182. And vou know Mr-. Gruneherg m 
after that date ? — Yes. 

133. You know the Government had 
net Parliamentary Agent tiermirely 
Minister saw no rea 
position already adoj 
had to expire at that 

l&L You know that after that Mrs. Gruneberg 
had to throw up the sponge when you continued 
in the occupation of your land ? — I was told Grune- 
herg left because of notice to quit. 
1 135. It was only after the time when your lease 
had terminated — Ye-. 

136. You know a tenant of one of the shops 
above the Baths also supplied refreshments? — 
Yes._ 

13/. And he also had to discontinue catering for 
pubic support as against you ? — I suppose so. 



Oct. 21. ia»j», 



tiiHL your lease 



1G 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT 



Mr. j. Lmie. 138. Mr. van der Bijl (through the Chairman).] 
Oct. 2ij 1909. When the lease was cancelled the last time by 
Colonel Crewe, the Government then advertised 
the lease of the land, without providing for com- 
pensation ? — Yes. I put in a cutting from the 
Government Gazette, dated the 29th August, 1905, 
containing that advertisement. 
[Witness put in cutting]. 

139. What reason did Mr. Fuller give you for 
advising you not to spend too much money? — 
Because times were bad. 

140. He did not say you must not spend too 
much money because vou could be turned out ? — 
No ; in fact I always had the sympathy of Mr. 
Fuller. 

141. With regard to the condition, at the time 
the lease was put up and you bid for it, that you 
had to be paid out £450 if someone else got the 
lease, you had your building appraised by a sworn 
appraiser, and that was the value put on it ? — Yes 

142. So that a person bidding for that lease 
would get a ready-made place as a going concern ? 

• —Yes. 

143. Mr. Jagger.] Who was the appraiser who 
valued at the time ? — I do not remember. 

144. Mr. Michau.~\ Was he a sworn appraiser ? — 

Yes. 

145. Mr. van der By! (through the Chairman).] 
Except for the one occasion when Colonel Crewe 
said you had sold things which you should not 
sell, specific reasons were not given for cancelling 
your lease ?— Never. 

146. You were never asked to justify your 
actions except on that one occasion ? — Never. 

147. It has been put to you that you have from 
time to time encroached. This was only done on 
one occasion ?— Only on one occasion has there 
been encroachment. 

148. You have not continually taken a little 
more ground ? — Nothing of the kind. 

149. Mr. Greer.] Have you taken any more ground 
than what is specified in the additional lease 



COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION OF J. LURIE 



17 



which has been granted ? In this additional lease Mr. j. Lurie. 
yon are allowed to take in certain more land for a 0ct 2 ~ im 
verandah on three sides of the refreshment room T 
and about 14 feet of land at the back, and also 
certain land on which a building of wood has been 
erected. You got all that ? — All that, and I have 
taken no more. 

150. Have you taken anything more than what 
you were allowed to take under this additional 
lease ? — I say no. 

151. How did you arrive at the figure of £1.500, 
the value which you put on your premises ? — At 
the time I knew exactly what it cost me. I paid 
so much for wood, labour, painting, and so on, and 
I reckoned it cost me about £1,500 altogether. 

152. Can you show us any details of those 
figures ? — I am afraid I cannot. 

153. If you say the labour cost £500, wood £500 
and iron £500, we can understand you, but it does 
not help the Committee very much to say that, 
taking everything into consideration, it cost about 
£1,500. Have you any books to show the amount 
spent on material or labour ? — No. 

154. Chairman a Is this £1,500 an estimate of 
your own or an actual value ? — I estimated that it 
cost me that. 

155. It is your own estimate ? — Yes, that it cost 
me about that. 

156. Mr, Jagger.] Surely it is quite possible for 
you to get exactly what it cost. You admit that 
£155 was the cost of the labour and architect's 
fees. You must have the accounts for the wood 
and iron, or have you burnt them ? — I have some 
accounts, but I do not think I have thern all. 

157. Have } t ou paid for the wood and iron ?— 
Yes. I have not proper books, but I have accounts. 

158. Mr. Alexander.'] You say there is a shop 
half-a-mile away. On which side is that ? — It used 
to be on the Cape Town side, on the rise — the old 
Camp's Bay store. It is now at the Baths. 

159. The people owning the ground at Camp's 
Bay own the place where the shop is ? — Yes. 

[A. 4—09.] Petition of J. Lurie. G 



L8 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT 



Mr. j. Lurie, 160. And do they lease it to someone else ? — 

•Oct 21. 1909- ^ eS * 

161. Is there any ground on the Camp's Bay side 
which does not belong to the Marine Suburbs ? — 
There is the hotel. 

162. Mr. Runciman.'] I suppose the £1,500 you 
say you have spent has included maintenance for 
the eight years — painting it and keeping it in 
repair from time to time ? — I had to pull down the 
old building as well. 

163. Mr. Michau.] I suppose the business has 
paid you fairly well ? — I make a living. 

The Eeverend David Pieter Faure, examined. 

,uev. d. p. 164. Mr. van der Byl (through the Chairman).] 

Fame. You are a property owner at Camps Bav ? — Yes. 
Oct. 21, 1909. 165. You have built a house there ?— Yes. 

166. And you live there yourself ? — Yes. 

167. You know these refreshment rooms of Mr. 
Lurie, situated on the foreshore ? — Yes. 

168. Do you consider that the refreshment rooms 
being carried on there by him are detrimental to 
your property or otherwise ? — Certainly it is not 
detrimental to my property. I think it improves 
it, because it induces more people to come to 
Camp's Bay, and in that way the value of property 
increases. 

169. You think it makes the place more popular ? 
—Yes. 

170. Do you think it meets the requirements of 
the public ? — I think so, because I object to all 
monopolies in the first place, and I have never 
heard any complaints about Mr. Lurie's place. I 
have always heard the refreshments well spoken of. 

171. Mr. Wahl (through the Chairman).] You 
are not a property owner wishing to sub-divide 
your property and get the public to buy it ? — No. 

172. You are not an intending caterer, nor a 
shopkeeper or intending shopkeeper ? — No. 

173. Do you think any man who has bought 
ground there and who would like to sell it to 
people who are caterers or shopkeepers would 



COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION OF J. LURIE 



19 



€onsider this place as improving or deteriorating Rev. d. p. 
the value of his ground ? — It may be decreased in Fa ^ re 
value, but I think it is in the public interests that -Oct. 21, 1909. 
there should be competition. 

174. Your house is near the Camp's Bav Hotel ? 
—Yes. 

175. That does not belong to the Company, nor 
is it on their ground ? — People do not go to hotels 
for refreshments. 

176. You know there are tenants of the shops at 
the Baths, and there is a grocery shop there ?— Yes. 

177. Do you know that the large Pavilion was 
let to Gruneberg, of Kamp's Cafe, Cape Town, and 
they ran it at slightly less charges than Cape Town 
charges, and that it did not pay ? — I did not know 
that. 

178. Did not you know that Mrs. Gruneberg was 
the caterer there ? — Yes, I knew that, but she left. 
I understood Gruneberg was a tenant of the Com- 
pany, If I may be allowed to say so, in justice to 
Mr. Lurie, there is an analogous case to this which 
was decided in Parliament last week. I refer to 
Parliament's resolution to buy Lambert's Bay in 
order to prevent its falling into the hands of a 
monopoly and in the interests of the public. 

179. Mr. Jagger.] Where is the analogy between 
Lambert's Bay and this case at Camp's Bay ? — In 
the case of Lambert's Bay Parliament has resolved 
to purchase the bay and the grounds about it, in 
the interests of the public, because of the fear of a 
monopoly being started there. 

180. Mr. Alexander.'] You were asked about the 
Camp's Bay Hotel. As a matter of fact, there is 
only one liquor licence in Camp's Bay, and no one 
can compete at present with that hotel, because no 
one has a licence ? — No. 

181. It is said the grocer's shop is not the pro- 
perty of the Company. It is in the premises of 
the Company ? — Yes. They let it to a tenant, as 
far as I know. 

182. How many years have you actually lived 
at Camp's Bay yourself? — Six years now. 

C 2 



20 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT 



Eev. d. p. 183. That is in your present premises ? How 
Fame. ] 011 o have you been a regular visitor there as a 
Oct. 21. 1909. housekeeper ? — I have been a visitor for the last 
thirty years to spend my summers there. 

Mr. Johannes Combrinle, examined. 

j (Wnink Mr. van tier Byl (through the Chairman).] 

.' You are the Field-cornet of Camp's Bay ? — Yes. 

Oct. 21, 1909. lg5 Hqw 1ong haTe y()U j ived there ?_p or ty 

years. 

186. You know Mr. Lurie's refreshment rooms ? 
—Yes. 

187. Do you think it detrimental to the interests 
of the people who come to Camp's Bay that they 
should exist there ? — No, I do not think so. 

188. Do you think it is an attraction to the place 
and an improvement ? — Yes. It is of benefit to the 
public, because it is so convenient ; it is on the 
beach. 

189. Do you think that it deteriorates the value 
of the other property ? — I do not think so. 

190. You know the pier at the bottom of Ad- 
derley Street ? — Yes. 

191. You know there are shops with cafes at the 
bottom of Adder-ley Street quite near the pier ? — 
Yes, before you conie to the pier. 

192. And in the interests of the public the Muni- 
cipality have allowed a refreshment room to be 
erected on the pier, which competes with those 
shops ? — Yes. 

193. Do you know that at Muizenberg, where 
there is a foreshore and beach, it is proposed to 
erect refreshment rooms on the beach in competi- 
tion with the shopkeepers ? — Yes, it is contem- 
plated. 

194. And they will be in competition with the 
existing restaurants in Muizenberg ? — Yes. 

195. As far as you know Mr. Lurie is conducting 
his refreshment rooms to the satisfaction of the 
public ? — Yes. 

196. His building is no eye-sore to the place ? — 
Generally when people go to Camp's Bay they do 



COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION OF J. LURIE 



21 



not go to drink tea ; but they £0 to the sea and. Mr. 
being there and feeling thirsty. Mr. Lurie's is the J Combrmk ' 
most convenient place to go to. Whether it acts Oct. 21, 1909. 
against the Company or not I cannot say. 

197. Chairman.} Do you think the public like to 
have a tearoom there ? — So far so that where one 
goes to the Pavilion ten or twenty people. go to 
Mr. Lurie's place. I know the Pavilion treats the 
people just as well as Mr. Lurie. but Mr. Lurie's is 
so much more convenient. 

198. Mr. van der Byl (through the Chairman).] 
You cannot say how they would treat the people 
if there were no competition ? — Xo. 

199. You know the trams do not stop at Mr. 
Lurie's, but at the Pavilion ? — Yes. 

200. And people get out there and. instead of 
going to the Pavilion, walk back to Mr. Lurie's. 
which is further, and Lave tea there ? — As I said, 
they do not go exactly to Mr. Lurie. They do not 
go for tea, but for a walk, and when they feel 
thirsty Mr. Lurie's is the nearest place. 

201' Mr. Wahl (through the Chairman).] You 
do know, in fact, that anybody wanting to buy 
land for a restaurant on the upper side of the road 
would be handicapped as long as Mr. Lurie was 
allowed on the beach site ? — I do not think any 
one else would buy land for a refreshment room 
where there are three such places near together. 

202. Xo one on the upper side can be otherwise 
than prejudiced by the fact of Mr. Lurie being on 
the beach ? Is it an advantage being on the 
beach ? — Yes, as I have explained. 



22 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT 



Monday, 25th October, 1909. 



PRESENT : 



The Secret aey foe Agriculture (Chairman.) 



Mr. J. Searle, 

Mr. van der Byl, Parliamentary Agent, appeared 
on behalf of J. Lurie. 

Mr. Wahl (of the firm of Messrs. Wahl, Fuller 
and de Klerk, Parliamentary Agents) appeared on 
behalf of the Cape Marine Suburbs, Ltd. 

Mr. Edmund William McLachlan Thomas, 
examined. 



Mr.E. w. 203. Mr. van der Byl (through the Chairman).] 
McL. xhomas. y 0 u are an Incorporated Accountant, carrying on 
Oct. 25, 1909. business in Cape Town ? — Yes. 



204. Mr. Lurie has given you certain accounts 
and receipts with regard to the expenditure made 
by him on his building at Camps Bay ? — Yes. 

205. You have been through those ? — Yes. 

206. From those accounts what does it appear 
he paid for labour ? — It shows he paid £150 4s. Od. 
of which £99 5s. 2d. is vouched for. 

207. "Where did you ascertain the balance of the 
amount from ? — An account produced to me by 
Mr. Boe, the architect who helped him with the 
plans at the time the building was erected. I 
put in a statement of account, together with the 
original contract for labour, dated September, 1904, 
for £105, the balance being accounted for by 
extras. (Witness put in Contract and Statement 
of Account). 

208. You have been through the accounts shew- 
ing what he paid Messrs. Ahlbom, Gullander & 
Co. ? — There is a statement produced by him, in- 
cluding interest, showing a total amount of £751 



Mr. Jagger, 
Mr. Michau, 
Mr. Alexander, 



Mr. Greer, 
Mr. Eunciman, 
Mr. J. H. Marais. 



COMMITTEE OX THE PETITION OF J. LUEIE 23 

4s. 3d. Of that £50 or £60 would be interest and Mr.iw. 
about £700 for material. There is not a sequence McL -^ oma ^ 
of accounts, but judging from the way they have Oct- ^ iwm 
been made up I should take it the interest would 
be about £60. In connection with that matter he 
has given me receipts amounting to £525. so there 
is a balance of about £240 which is not vouched 
for. 

209. He produced., no receipts that that amount 
had. been paid., but Messrs, Ahlbom. Gullander & 
Go's, account shews amounts making up that sum. 
for which promissory notes were given ? — Yes, It 
would appear that the actual payment to Messrs. 
Ahlbom. Gullander ce Co. was £751 4s. 3d., but 
actual vouchers have not been produced to amplify 
the whole amount. 

210. Mr. Jagger.] What is the date of those 
statements ?— February, 1906. 

211. The date when he commenced ? — From Sep- 
tember, 1904. 

212. That was the first start ? — Yes. 

213. Mr. van der Byl (through the Chairman).} 
In addition to that there was an amount paid, to a 
painter ? — To T. Armstrong. Vouchers were pro- 
duced to the amount of £63. 

214. Were there any other items ? — Mr. Lurie 
explained that these accounts did not include 
glass, hinges or the old. building, which I under- 
stand from him was valued at £450 previously. 

215. What do all the items total ?— £989 19s. 3d., 
excluding glass, hinges and the old building. 

216. What are the fees for ? — Architect's fees in 
connection with preparing the plans and advising 
Mr. Lurie. You would, no doubt, like to know the 
total amount represented bv the vouchers actually 
produced, which is £712 15s. 2d. of the £989 18s. 3d. 
To my mind, the proof is conclusive that he has 
spent £989 18s. 3d., but actual vouchers have not 
been produced to me for the whole amount. I 
only saw Mr. Roe on Saturday at 12.30. and he 
produced the statement to me this morning, with- 
out Mr. Lurie "s help in any way. at 9.15 a.m. 



24 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT 



iMr.E.w, 217. Chairman.'] Your evidence is to the effect 
cl. Thomas, ^ iere were? [ n addition to the accounts 

Oct 25, iyoa vouched, out-of-pocket expenses to the amount of 
£277 ?— At least. 

218. Are you satisfied in your own mind that 
there is sufficient evidence that that money was 
actually spent ? — Yes, I am. 

219. Although no vouchers have been produced ? 
—Yes. 

220. On what do you base your opinion ? — I base 
that opinion on the fact that I have obtained 
information from the architect, and the rough 
statement which he had in his hand from Mr. 
Selkirk, showing the difference between the £99 
and £150. and also the statement of Messrs. 
Ahlbom, Gullander & Co., showing £751, although 
the amount actually vouched was £.525. I went 
into the matter further in regard to other build- 
ings going on. I questioned Mr. Eoe as to whether 
Mr. Lurie had any other buildings going on at the 
same time, and he said he had not. I also found, 
in going through Mr. Lurie's papers, an estimate 
from Messrs. J. Omancl & Co., dated 19th August, 
1904, giving an estimate for the work at £985 15s., 
which I now put in. (Witness handed in original 
tender for building). 

221. Mr. Wahl (through the Chairman).] As 
regards the matter of painting, is not Armstrong's 
account for maintenance subsequent to construc- 
tion ? I think the original contract of £150 indu- 
ed the painting ? — I have the receipts here from 
JVlr. Armstrong. The original contract does not 
include painting that I know of. 

222. You say that £751 was paid to Messrs. 
Ahlbom, Gullander & Co., which includes interest. 
Have you not got the actual facts of the material 
supplied ?— There is not a sequence of accounts; I 
have a number of accounts, but they do not run in 
order. There is an account rendered for £427 19s., 
but there is no previous account to that, appar- 
ently. 



COMMITTEE OX THE PETITION OF J. LUEIE 



25 



223. Messrs. Ahlbom, Gullander & Co.'s books Mt.e.w, 
shew that the material supplied to him amounted McL1 ^ oma8 * 
to £715 6s. 5d.. less £3 10s. interest up to and in- Oct. 25,1m 
eluding Yovember. and in December there is an 

item for interest again ? — £751 was given as the 
gross amount. I will put in a statement of the 
figures which have been vouched, and in connection 
with the remainder there is documentary evi- 
dence which is almost conclusive, although from 
an accountant's point of view it is not conclusive. 
{AVitness put in statement of vouchers produced). 

Mr. Jacob Lurie, further examined. 

224. Mr. van der Byl (through the Chairman .] Mr - 
You have heard the evidence given by Mr. Oct. 25, 19®. 
Thomas, and the figures quoted by him ? — "Yes. 

225. Included in those amounts, was there any 
account for glass which you bought ? — Yo. 

226. Y7ho did you buv that through ?— Furman 
did ail the 2'iasswork for me. 

o 

227. There is a great deal of glass in the build- 
ing ? — The sides are all glass. 

228. You do not know the exact amount it cost ? 
— Yo. but I think it was between £40 and £50, 
including the carriage out there, because the 
frames had to be glazed at* his place. 

229. Then there were hinges and locks which 
you bought ? — Messrs. Ahlbom. Gullander & Co. 
had. no assortment whatever, and I went to Smith 
& Co. in Bree Street, also Eoss & Co.. and other 
places, to buy anything I required in that respect. 
I wanted the building finished as soon as possible, 
because it was summer, and I bought these things 
just as I wanted them. 

230. What do you estimate you paid in that 
way ? — I could not say. These fittings were all 
brass. 

231. Would they come to £50? — I daresay they 
would. 

232. The material that was in your old building 
was used in the new building ? — I used the whole 
of it in the new building. 



26 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT 



i 



Mr. j. Lurie. 233. Which was not included in the prices which 
Oct. 25^1909. have been given to the Committee? — No. I want 
to state that the original painting contract with 
Armstrong was £60, hut I paid another £90, for 
which I had no receipts. The original contract 
was £105, and he brought me up an account for 
£240, and as there seemed likely to be a dispute, I 
think I gave him £71 extra. Besides the expense 
stated, I made wells, cemented the yard and laid 
pipes, for all of which there are no accounts. 

Mr. James Riddle Farquhar. examined. 

Mr-J^E. 234. Mr. Wahl (through the Chairman).] You 
arqu ax. {li e Secretary of the Cape Marine Suburbs, 
Oct. 25, 1909. Ltd. ? — I am. 

235. That Company was registered on the 16th 
May, 1899 ?— Yes. 

236. And acquired a very large quantity of land 
at Camp's Bay ? — Nearly all the land with the 
exception of the Camp's Bay Hotel ground. 

237. This plan which was put in the other day 
shows where the boundary of the Company's 
property runs ? — Yes. 

238. Largely on the beach in some places, the 
high- water mark being actually on the Company's 
ground ? — Yes. 

239. The ground was bought on that supposi- 
tion ? — Yes. 

240. The shareholders in this Company took, 
steps to develop Camp's Bay ? — Yes. 

241. And became largely interested, financially, 
in the Camp's Bay Tramway Company, which 
was registered about a year later ? — In April. 1900, 
I think. 

242. Mr. Jagger.~\ What was the capital of the 
Cape Marine Suburbs, Ltd. ?— £85,000. 

243. Was it all paid up ?— Yes. At first it was 
£10,000 and afterwards was increased to £85,000. 

244. Was all the £85,000 spent ?— Yes, and a 
great deal more. 

245. Mr. Wahl (through the Chairman).] As a 
matter of fact the Company was indebted — and is 



COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION OF J. LURIE 



27 



still indebted— so that it had to raise money on m^. jjel 
debentures '? — Yes. arqunar. 

246. The Company is allied with not only the °<* : 25 : 
Camp's Bay Tramway Company but also with the 
Oranjezieht Company ? — Yes. 

247. The shares of the three Companies are 
practically all owned by the Cape Town Consoli- 
dated Land and Tramways Company in London ? — 
Yes. to whom the Cape Marine Suburbs is indebted 
to the extent of about £50.000. 

248. 'Mr.,Jagger.] The Cape Marine Suburbs. 
Ltd.. has practically spent £135.000 ? — I should say 
so. roughly. 

249. In addition, the Camp's Bay Tramway has 
cost a very large amount ? — I should say over 
£300.000. 

250. Jfr. Ward through the Chairman ).] Which 
was done in the hope that the land could be cut 
up and sold, and a watering place made at Camp's 
Bay ?— Yes. 

251. You are Secretary of the Camp's Bay Tram- 
way Company as well as the Cane Marine Suburbs. 
Ltd. ?— Yes, 

252. But the Camp's Bay Tramway Company 
does not own land there ? — No. 

253. Mr. Lurie told us he first approached you. 
Before he wrote you about the Pagoda, which was 
being built, did he make a request to you. as 
Secretary of the Camp's Bay Tramway Company, 
or as representative of the land-owners, asking for 
land on which to build ? — I never saw Mr. Lurie 
at all. 

254. You only knew of him when he applied for 
the lease of the Pagoda ? — He applied for that in 
writing about the 19th December. 1901. He then 
applied for the hiring of the Pagoda, which he has 
stated here he did not then know of. I put in his 
letter asking to hire the premises, also copy of our 
reply. [Witness put in letter and copy of letter.] 

255. As a matter of fact, at that time the erec- 
tion of the Pagoda was being pushed, and it was 
visible to the eye. and anyone could see that cater- 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT 



Mr. j. r. ing for the supply of refreshments was being 
arqu ar. arran g e( j f or ? — Certainly. As soon as the tram- 
oct. 25, loon, way was opened in 1901 we cabled to London for 
permission to erect a refreshment room, and they 
cabled back permission, whereupon we imme- 
diately started erecting the Pagoda at the end of 
November or the beginning of December. 

256. This Pagoda was an open-air place under 
the fir trees, providing accommodation for a large 
number of people ? — Yes, a very picturesque place. 

257. And it Avas very largely patronised by the 
public ? — Yery largely. 

258. It was opened on the very day that the first 
permission to open a refreshment room was 
granted to Mr. Lurie ? — That is so. 

259. Is the statement in Mr. Lurie' s petition 
correct where he says that shortly after spending 
his money the Tramway Company opened refresh- 
ment rooms, and the Tramway Company tried to 
eject him ? — That is false. 

260. He opened in competition with you ? — Yes ; 
he opened on the 8th January, 1902, 

261. In December, I believe, you had an applica- 
tion from a man named Katz for permission to 
erect refreshment booths while the Pagoda was 
being built, because you were not catering at the 
Christmas and New Year holidays ? — We could 
not manage to finish the place by then, and so we 
allowed Katz, on his application, to put up a 
marquee for those days. 

262. What was the first you heard of Mr. Lurie ? 
You remember the Field- cornet giving evidence 
the other day ? — The Field-cornet called on me 
one day and informed me that some one was 
putting up tents on the Company's ground. . I 
went and told the man he must not do it, and he 
said I " must see the baas." I left then and after- 
wards wrote to Mr. Lurie. I was new to the 
estate and thought this was taking place on the 
Company's ground, as I thought we had bought 
everything right up to the sea in that part. 



COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION OF J. LURIE 



211 



263. You had no suspicion at that time that Mr. Mr. j. r. 
Lurie had permission from the Government to go Farc ^ har - 
on the beach ? — No. °ct 25, 1909. 

264. Was that the first you ever knew of Mr. 
Lurie ? — The first I ever knew. 

265. Are these facts in the petition from the . 
Cape Marine Suburbs correctly put forward in 
sequence, as regards building this Pavilion and 
the rest of it ? — Yes. to the best of my knowledge. 

266. The moment you found you had made a 
mistake in that letter, and that there was some 
ground which could be called Crown Land, the 
Company applied to Government to purchase 
whatever ground there was, in terms of Section 
fourteen of Act No. 15 of 1887 ? — Yes. I put in a 
copy of a letter to the Surveyor-General from our 
Solicitors, Messrs. Silberbauer, Wahl & Fuller, 
dated the 11th February. 1902, and the original 
reply from the Surveyor- General, dated the 18th 
February, 1902. [Witness put in copy of letter 
and original letter.] 

267. Mr. Rune i man. ~] That was after Mr. Lurie 
had built his place ? — After he had permission, 
but before he built. 

268. Mr. Wahl (through the Chairman).] From 
time to time your Company protested against the 
occupation of the beach in this way and the con- 
tinuation of Mr. Lurie's title ? — Yes. 

269. And you were often assured by successive 
Governments that it was purely temporary and 
would not be renewed, and this kept going on ? — 
Yes ; assurances were received by my predecessor. 

270. Mr. Lurie has taken up the sentimental 
attitude as if you were persecuting him ? — Yes. 

271. As a matter of fact, if Mr. Lurie did not use 
water belonging to the Company his existence 

. there would be practically impossible ? — I think 
so, because I do not think the water he could get 
otherwise would serve. 

272. His cows graze on your land ? — Yes. 

273. He has made a point of the fact that the 
trams do not stop at his doors. As a matter of 



30 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT 



Mr. j r. f ac t ? does the ground between Mr. Lome's place 
aiqu ar. an( j ^ e Pavilion belong to your Company? — Yes. 
Oct. 25, 1909. 274. If you liked you could exclude people from 
approaching his building ? — Counsel's opinion tells 
us we can do that. 

275. And prevent people gaining access except 
by a roundabout way ? — Yes ; we can do anything 
we like between the roadway and the present site. 
We have been quite lenient with him though, and 
are now fighting on a matter of principle. 

276. Mr. Michau.~] You have heard no objection to 
Mr. Lurie's place? — No; we are not objecting to 
Mr. Lurie, but to Mie Government for allowing it. 

277. Mr. Wahl (through the Chairman).] You 
are not making any complaint about Mr. Lurie's 
management ? — No. 

278. Your grievance is the fact of its competi- 
tion ? — I admit at once that it is the most con- 
venient site in Camp's Bay. 

279. Evidence was given by the Field-cornet of 
Camp's Bay in regard to Muizenberg. Is there 
any possibility there of any one having a refresh- 
ment room on the public beach or foreshore ? — I 
think you will find it is just the opposite. 

280. The public beach and foreshore at Kalk 
Bay was protected by this House, even against the 
Municipality, that it could not be used for any- 
thing but a pier and pavilion and bathing places ? 
— That is so. 

281. From time to time the Company has offered 
ground for sale at Camp's Bay, both by public 
auction and private treaty, and you are anxious 
to sell ?--Yes. 

282. Sites are specially set aside for the rights 
to carry on shops ? — Yes. 

283. Has Mr. Laurie ever attempted to buy or 
lease any ground from the Company for the pur- - 
pose of a refreshment room or shop? — Never, as 
far as I know. 

284. In the following year your Company com- 
menced the erection of the large Pavilion ? — Yes. 

285. At that time Mr. Lurie still had the lease 
on short notice ? — Yes. 



COMMITTEE OX THE PETITION OF J. LURIE 



31 



286. Your Company spent over £26,000 on this Mr. j. r. 
Pavilion and clining-rooni and so on ? — Yes. merely Far ^ har - 
for the building, without the ground. 0ct - 23 - m 

287. And that has been leased to a number of 
tenants in turn ? — Yes. 

288. They have all been competing with Mr. 
Lurie. and none have been able to make any 
headway ? — Xone of them. 

289. The Baths are close at hand too. a little dis- 
tance beyond the Power Station ?— About 100 
yards behind the Power Station and 200 yards 
from the Pavilion. 

290. A number of shops are there ? — There are 
six shops by the Baths, one of which is let and five 
are empty. One was let as a refreshment room, 
but they had to give it up. 

291. That was not run by your Company ? — Xo ; 
the shop was let by the Company. 

292. tip to now your Company has never com- 
peted with Mr. Lurie for the supply of refresh- 
ments until after his present lease had lapsed on 
the 1st December this year ? — X ever. 

293. When he continued in possession, in spite 
of his lease lapsing, the last tenant of the Pavilion 
threw up the sponge ? — Yes. I must say that we 
are not trying to sell tea and coffee, but to start a 
township. 

294. Your chief object is to get people there by 
tram ? — Yes. 

295. AVhile Mr. Lurie has this monopoly, by 
reason of the exceptional site on the beach, no one 
has a chance ? — No. 

296. Mr. Michau.] I suppose the rent of the 
Pavilion, because of this enormous cost, is almost 
prohibitive ? — The present rent charged was £20 
per month in the summer months and £10 in the 
winter months, which is not the rent of a decent 
house. The tenant kept cows and poultry, and 
had huge grounds, and yet could not get this rent 
back. 

297. Mr. Wahl (through the Chairman).] Asa 
matter of fact you know the tenant never earned 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT 



Mr. j. r. anything like a portion of the rent, and this rent 
Farquhar. no ^ ^ een p a id £ 0 y 0 ^' although you charged it ? 
Oct. 25, 1900. —That is so. 

298. Your tenants owe large sums for rent ? — 
Yes. 

299. So you have never got interest on the money 
you expended ? — No. 

300. Do you agree with the Field-cornet that 
people going to Camp's Bay naturally turn to the 
beach, and if they can get refreshments on the 
beach do not go to the upper side of the road ? — 
Naturally. At one time we offered Mr. Lurie a 
site on the other side of the road, when it was de- 
bated jn the early stages, but he would not have it. 

301. You have been to Muizenberg and Somerset 
West. Do you know if any one has a refreshment 
room on the public beach at either of these places 
as opposed to private property ?— I could not say ; 
I would not commit myself. 

302. You have not seen it ? — No. 

303. When Mr. Lurie's tenancy had lapsed, and 
it was put up for public competition, it was a con- 
dition that any one purchasing the lease had to 
pay him, in cash, on the day of the sale, £450 as 
compensation for his building ? — Yes, and that 
was only for a 30 ft. by 30 ft. site. I might point 
out that tenders w~ere called for in January, 1904, 
before that, and tenders were sent in. 

304. Mr. Jagger.] Did your people tender ? — Not 
directly. 

305. Mr. Wahl (through the Chairman).] In- 
directly, you had personal knowledge of one 
tender sent in, and you can give no explanation 
of why that tender was not accepted as against 
Mr. Lurie's ? — No. 

306. Mr. Jagger.^ When tenders were called for 
in respect of a site 30 ft. by 30 ft., was that the 
size of the place existing at the time ? — Yes. 

307. And this encroachment has taken place 
since ? — Yes. 

308. Mr. Wahl (through the Chairman).] As 
regards encroachment, has any member of the 



COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION OF J. LURIE 



33 



public, in terms of the law under which Crown Mr, j. r„ 
land must be leased, ever had the chance by public Far( ^ har - 
competition of making sen offer for the 9,000 square Oct. 25, 1909. 
feet of land which Mr. Lurie holds in excess of 
the portion which was put up to public auction ? — 
Not to my knowledge ; I do not think it has ever 
been done. 

309. If anything of the kind had been done it 
w^ould not be without your knowledge ? — No ; I 
should have been watching for it. 

310. When Mr. Lurie's lease was cancelled it 
was because he sold groceries and so on, in con- 
travention of the terms of his lease, and that can- 
cellation was afterwards withdrawn ? — Yes. 

311. Did you afterwards offer proof to the 
Government that he was openly selling groceries 
and carrying on a grocery business ? — I might 
explain to the Committee that I had a letter from 
a tenant of ours at the (lamp's Bay Store, inform- 
ing us that Mr. Lurie was selling in competition 
with him, and that he could not make a living. 
It is not as if we were persecuting Mr. Lurie, but 
when we got this letter we made representations 
to the Government. 

312. Mr. Greer.] Was the Camp's Bay Store on 
your ground ? — Yes. I accordingly forwarded this 
letter to the Surveyor-General's office pointing out 
the contravention, and the correspondence will 
show that this was not believed at first, and we 
then supplied proof in the way of names, etc. 
When the proof was submitted the cancellation 
took place. 

313. Mr. Wahl (through the Chairman).] Ten- 
ders were then called for ?— It was advertised for 
public auction. 

314. And the auction never came off ? — It was 
withdrawn two or three days before the advertised 
date. 

315. As regards the previous objections, your 
Company of course had no locus standi in the 
Supreme Court, and you were not parties to the 
application to eject Mr. Lurie ?— No. 

[A. 4— "00.] Petition of J. Lurie. D 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT 



Faruh?r 816 ' Mr ' Van der B ^ (through the Chairman).] 
arqu ai. y ou sav the Tramway Company has no interest 
Oct. 25, 1909. i n any of the land ?— Yes. 

317. Therefore, as far as the Tramway Company 
is concerned, Mr. Lurie's refreshment rooms cannot 
injure you in any way ; they do not stop people 
going by the trams ?— No. 

318. Then why have you given special orders 
that the trams must not stop at his place ? — I do 
not see why we should stop our cars at his front 
door when we have a place a little lower down 
belonging to the allied Companies of which I am 
Secretary. 

319. There is no doubt about it the two are in- 
terested ? — They are certainly allied companies. 

320. Mr. Greer.] Do not the trams run for the 
convenience of the public ? — Certainly. 

321. If the public want them to stop at this 
place, why should they not be allowed to ? — 
Because it is not a stopping place. 

322. Originally the trams did stop there ? — The 
reason being that the entrance to the Pagoda was 
there. 

323. Supposing a passenger on a tram desires to 
stop at a particular place, do you suppose you are 
acting in the spirit of the Act of Parliament giving 
you the right to run the trams when you refuse to 
stop there ? — I do not think the public are incon- 
venienced by walking not more than 50 yards, and 
another thing is the tram is going dead slow, 
because the trolley has to be changed, and people 
get on and off. 

324. Mr. Van der By I (through the Chairman).] 
If a person standing at Mr. Lurie's place wants to 
take the tram to Cape Town where does it stop ? 
— About 150 yards up. 

325. If it is raining, people have to run that 
distance to the tram ? — Or go back the 50 yards to 
the terminus. 

326. As a matter of fact, Mr. Lurie offered to 
pay for the water, and you refused ? — That is so. 

t I could not very well come to this Committee, 
" having supplied him with water. 



COMMITTEE. ON THE PETITION OF J. LURIE 



327. You have just said you offered to Mr. Mr. j.r. 
Lurie a bit of ground opposite his place on your Farq ^ har ' 
own property, and to remove the building for him. Oct. 25, 1909. 
which he refused ? — We did not offer to remove 

the building. 

328. I have a copy of a letter from Mr. Lurie to 
you, dated the 30th April, 1904, showing that he 
was quite prepared to do that, which 1 will put in. 
[Letter put in] ? — He was not quite prepared to do 
that. He was hanging on until he heard whether 
the Government would make him move, and when 
Government allowed him to stay there was no 
question of his moving. 

329. Do you admit he was prepared to do that 
and you refused ? — He was not refused. 

330. You admit you received the letter of the 
30th April ? — I presume so. 

331. What was your reply to it ? — I could not 
tell you. I might ascertain. 

332. You approve of the petition made by your 
Company, and state the contents are correct ? — 
Yes. 

333. You approve of Clause XX.. '-The Govern- 
ment thereupon inserted a number of advertise- 
ments in the public press advertising the sale of 
the lease, on conditions to which your Petitioner 
specially craves leave to refer this Honourable 
House, and vour Petitioner and others who had 
bought ground, or leased shops and tea rooms, and 
other caterers for public wants, thought that fair 
trade would at last become possible at Camp's 
Bay " ?— Yes. 

334. That was after Colonel Crewe had cancelled 
* Mr. Lurie's lease they were prepared to put that 

up again for public auction, just for the bare 
ground, the successful purchaser to erect his own 
building ? — According to the advertisement that is 
so. We did nor approve of it. 

335. Any person being a successful tenderer 
would be able to put up a tea-room, and you would 
have no objection to that, but your objection was 
to Mr. Lurie being compensated for his tea-room ? 

D 2 



36 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT 



Mr. j. k. — I have said all along that it is the principle of 
Farquhar. j eag i n g t ne foreshore that we object to. 
Oct. 25 ; 1909. 336. What do you mean by " Yoar Petitioner 
and others thought that fair trade would at last 
become possible at Camp's Bay" ? — Simply because 
we thought the Government had decided to do 
away with Mr. Lurie's place altogether, and that 
those buying ground and renting the Company's 
shops would have a fair chance of doing a reason- 
able trade. 

337. You say " The Government thereupon 
inserted a number of advertisements in the public 
press advertising the sale of the lease...," and this 
was what you and other owners thought fair. 
Now what do you say ? — I say still that we 
objected in toto to the foreshore being leased. We 
did not object to competition ; we want as many 
people as like to come to sell tea and coffee at 
Camp's Bay. 

338. You were saying that your ground in some 
parts on the Camp's Bay runs right down to below 
high-water mark ?— That is so in some places on 
our boundary. 

339. So you can put up a tea-room yourself as near 
the sea as Mr. Lurie's is ? — If we erected a tea-room 
on the beach it would be doing just what we are 
objecting to. We are trying to develop the place 
and make the foreshore attractive. We would 
never think of putting up a tea-room there. Last 
year the sea came up and went right over the road. 

340. Mr. Michau.'] You could do so if you wish- 
ed ? — Certainly. 

341. Mr. van der By I (through the Chairman).] 
You know, as a matter of fact, the Municipality of 
Cape Town have allowed a tea-room to be put up 
on the pier at the bottom of Adderley Street ?— 
Yes, I see it. 

342. You know in many seaside places in England 
and on the Continent it is customary to have such 
places on the foreshore ; it is an attraction to the 
places ? — Not on the foreshore. This is unique in 
the Colony. 



COMMITTEE OX THE PETITION OF J. LURIE 



37 



343. And in Europe and England? — I have no Mr. j.B. 
experience other than Scotland and England, and Far( ^ har - 

I do not know that I have seen it except on piers. Oct. 25, 1909. 

344. Surely on piers it is just as much in com- 
petition with the shops as on the beach ? — I do not 
think there is any analogy at all. 

345. Is not a pier with a refreshment room just 
as much competition ? — It is not that at all. I do 
not think it is fair for the Government to let a 
piece of the foreshore in competition with others ; 
that is unique. 

346. You yourself applied for the land, and 
would have used it for this purpose ? — Xo ; it was 
simply to keep it from being used. We have 
different ideas in regard to the foreshore, and are 
being kept back on that account. 

347. With regard to the sale of your land there, 
how many houses have been erected at Camp's 
Bay ? — I think only about six or seven. 

348. You say you had a sale, and sold some land. 
How many shop sites have you sold ? — Two. 

349. Has any one got transfer of those ? — The 
man went bankrupt. 

350. No one has taken transfer of a shop lot? 
— Xo. 

351. Who bought ?— Mr. S. B. Mills. 

352. He was a shareholder of the Company ?— 
Xo. He could have made £1,000 from the Cold 
Storage Company half an hour after he had 
bought. 

353. Mr. MichauJ] He did not? — Xo ; and he 
unfortunately lost his money. 

354. Mr. Van der Byl through the Chairman).] 
You say the Company has put a tremendous 
amount of capital into it. You do not wish the 
Committee to believe that the Company is being 
ruined by this little tea-room ? — I want the Com- 
mittee to understand the development which is 
being hindered, because there is nothing we have 
put our hand to which is paying. For instance that 
Pavilion has cost £26,000 and what one would 
have naturally expect in return is going to the 
tea-room on the beach. 



38 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT 



Mr. j. k. 355. Your object is really to sell land ? — Yes. 

Parquhar. ggg res i denta l purposes ?— YeS. 

Oct. 25, 1909. 357. Do you mean to say that the fact of Mr. 

Lurie's refreshment rooms being there is affecting 
the sale of your land for building purposes ? — It is 
affecting it as far as shops are concerned. 

358. You will not get shops until you get resi- 
dental places. Is it affecting the residental 
places ? — I would not like to say one way or the 
other. 

359. With regard to the ground you have on the 
foreshore, you know, as a matter of fact, that it 
has always been a public road ? — I know no such 
thing. 

360. Do you mean to tell me there is no public 
roadway from the main road to the beach ? — None 
whatsoever, as far as I am aware. 

361. Your contention is that the Tramway Com- 
pany, or the Cape Marine Suburbs, Ltd., can, if 
they like, fence the whole road in and let no one 
to the beach ? — We have counsel's opinion to that 
effect. There is a right of way opposite the 
Pavilion and another by the Camp's Bay Hotel. 

362. What is the size of the ground you have 
leased from the Government ? — I could not tell 
you, but the pump-house is about 12 feet square. 
Then w^e have erected bathing boxes for the con- 
venience of the public, who pay nothing to us for 
them. We make no charge, and would hand them 
over to Government. For this we pay £5 a month. 

363. You have hired ground larger in extent 
than Mr. Lurie's, and pay only £5 ? — That state- 
ment is not correct. The pump-house is only 12 
feet square. 

364. Mr. Greer.] Including the bathing boxes ? — 
Even then it is not as large as Mr. Lurie's ground. 

365. Mr. van der Byl (through the Chairman).] 
I am talking of the ground leased to you ? — I do 
not think it is a lease at all. I think it is an 
encroachment, which we pay £5 a year for. 

366. There was a complaint that Mr. Lurie broke 
the conditions of his lease by selling newspapers 



COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION OF J. LURIE 



39 



ill his place. You know he has special leave from Mr. j. r> 
Government to sell newspapers ? — I believe so. Farquhar. 

367. And also that the Government have their Oct. 25, 1909. 
post-office in his refreshment rooms ? — I believe 

so. The post-office was at the Camp's Bay Store 
until it was closed. 

368. Let me put it in this way : the place appar- 
ently is a public convenience, but it is a nuisance 
to your Company ? — I may say that it would be a 
public convenience if there were a hundred such 
places on the foreshore. 

369. Do you suggest to the Committee that if 
Mr. Lurie is got rid of there, and he is compensated 
either by your Company or the Government, then 
your Pavilion will pay ? — Yes. 

370. Do you think the "public would go there 
then ? — I am absolutely sure of it. 

371. And that it would then pay ? — It might not 
pay at first, but it would pay working expenses. 

372. Mr. Michau.~] It would not pay you any 
interest 011 your £26,000 ?— No, I do not think so r 
but it would pay working expenses, and as long as 
it pays that we can go on, but we cannot go on 
sinking money year by year. 

373. It would have been rather a good thing for 
the Company to have bought over Mr. Lurie ? — I 
do not think it would be fair to have to do that. 

374. Mr. van der Byl (through the Chairman).] 
If Mr. Lurie is not there, will there be any com- 
petition against the Tramway Company or the 
Cape Marine Suburbs with regard to supplying 
refreshments ? — Certainly. 

375. \\There ? — There is Mrs. Bishop. 

376. She is no competition ? — She does not think 
that 

377. Mr. Greer. .] As a matter of fact, if what 
you want does take place the Cape Marine 
Suburbs will have an absolute monopoly ? — Cer- 
tainly not. because you have five empty shops 
ready to supply any want that may be created. 

378. If one of your tenants was seriously com- 
peting with your Pavilion, and making it a non- 



40 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT 



Mr. j. paying concern, do you mean to say you would 
Farouhar. no ^ a( j 0 p^ ^fie same tactics as you are doing 
Oct, 25, u)09. towards Mr. Lurie, and evict your tenant ? — Not 
at all. It would not be fair to the tenant, and the 
Company cannot be accused of any injustice like 
that. It is our object to try to popularise Camp's 
Bay, and bring as many people there as possible. 
In leasing the Pavilion the tenant has to submit 
his tariff to us, which must not be higher than the 
tariff in town, and as a matter of fact that is the 
tariff which is at present being charged. 

379. Mr. Michau.] You do not want us to believe 
you would allow a small tenant to compete with 
you when you are anxious to get some return for 
your £26,000 ? — We should get the rent from the 
tenant. 

380. Mr. J. H. Marais.] Is it that the public are 
satisfied with Mr. Lurie's place, and not with your 
Pavilion ? — That has never been suggested. 

381. You say you cannot make it pay ? — Because 
the other place is more convenient. 

382. And because it is more convenient you 
would like to see it taken away altogether ?— Not 
because it is more convenient, but because the 
foreshore is the public playground. Mr. Lurie's 
place does not draw them there, but when they 
are on the beach they go to his place naturally ; 
I am half inclined to go there myself if I am on 
the beach. 

383. Mr. Greer.'] You are not here in the in- 
terests of the public, but in your own interest ? — 
Exactly ; but we cannot divorce the public in- 
terests from our interests on the present occasion. 

384. Was the Government land which you have 
built over at Camp's Bay put up to auction? 
Have you the lease of it ? — No ; it is not a lease, 
but an encroachment. 

385. That was not put up to public auction ? — 
No, 

386. So you are in the same fault as Mr. Lurie 
as far as that is concerned, if there is any fault on 
the part of either of you ?— But the one is leased. 



COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION OF J. LURIE 



41 



387. As to these Companies, you say the office Mr. j. r. 
of the Cape Marine Suburbs and the Camp's Bay Far< ^ har " 
Tramway Company is the same ? — Yes, and also ^ ] 909. 
the Oranjezicht Estate — all in the one room. 

388. With the one Secretary ? — Yes. 

389. And the same directors ? — Yes. 

390. So that an outsider would not be able to 
tell one from the other under those circumstances? 
— But at Camp's Bay there are big notice boards 
erected by the Cape Marine Suburbs. Ltd. 

391. The one Company sometimes writes on the 
other Company's paper, defacing the printed head- 
ing with a rubber stamp ? — Mistakes like that 
might happen. 

392. Mr. van der Byl (through the Chairman).] 
You say you are anxious to meet the interests of 
the public. As a matter of fact, do you think the 
public would rather have a barren bit of ground 
or a tea-room where Mr. Lurie's tea-room is ? — I 
could not tell you. 

393. Have you ever had one of the public 
grumble, and say, " We would rather have this as 
a playground " ? — No. 

394. You deny that Mr. Lurie approached you 
and asked to buy ground there ? — I have no recol- 
lection of seeing him. 

395. If he states it was so, you would not deny 
it ? — I would derrj it. I have no recollection of 
seeing him. 

396. If he said he did go there, would you say 
that is a lie ? — Yes. I would. 

397. Why would you ? — Because I am absolutely 
sure in my own mind that I never saw Mr. Lurie 
until he had started his pagoda. 

398. Re came there, and was anxious to start a 
teaplace. What is the most probable thing he 
would do ? Would he not try to find the owner 
and go to him ? Why should he not have gone to 
you ? There was no harm in it ? — It was the most 
natural thing in the world. 

399. But still you say it is a lie ?— Yes, I believe 
so ; I believe Mr. Lurie never came to me. 



42 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT 



Mr. j. r, 400. Are you prepared to assert that ? — I am 

Farquhar. prepared to a Sser t it. 

Oct. 25, 1909. 401. You say the last tenant paid you £10 a 
month in the winter and £20 a month in the 
summer for the Pavilion ? — Yes. 

402. If I am prepared to get you a tenant for 
ten years at that rate are you prepared to let at 
that ?— No. 

403. Chairman.] You mentioned in your evidence 
that the fore-shore is being improved ? — Yes. 

404. Can you give the Committee some parti- 
culars as to the improvement of the fore-shore ? — 
The Company have big plans of putting down a 
promenade right along from the Camp's Bay 
Hotel to the Power Station, and intend making a 
children's pool and putting up arc lamps on the 
beach, and generally making the place more 
attractive. 

405. Will the site now occupied by the beach 
pagoda interfere with these improvements ? — I 
believe it will! 

408. Have you any definite plans to put before 
the Committee on that point of improvements ? — 
No ; I have not. 

407. Mr. Wahl (through the Chairman).] The 
Company has been mocked at from the beginning 
for its optimism in spending all this money at 
Camp's Bay ? — Yes. 

408. They have been in the hopes of eventually 
making it a success, and the schemes you now 
speak of are what they are still contemplating 
doing towards trying to make it a success ? — 
Quite so. 

409. The Company are members of the public ; 
you are large taxpayers ? — Yes. 

410. And you are entitled to some protection on 
that account ?— Certainly. 

411. It would also be a convenience to the public 
if a dozen pagodas were put along in front of your 
ground, so that instead of possessing the ground 
you have bought facing on the sea all the land of 
the Company would be back ground ? — Yes. 



COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION OF J. LUEIE 



43 



412. If the Company make this a successful Mr. j. r. 
-watering place there is nothing to prevent pagodas Farq ^ har 
being run up in a string along the sea wall of the o<a. 25. 1909, 
esplanade ? — Nothing that I see. 

413. At Somerset West, in the same way. I sup- 
pose you do not say for a moment it would not be 
a public convenience if such places were built on 
the beach opposite the hotels there ? — It would be 
a public convenience, certainly. 

414. Is there any difference in the money you 
are spending on the shops and on the Pavilion ; is 
it coming from any different fund ? — ISTot at all. 

415. It is implied that, in order to make your 
Pavilion pay, you would deliberately ruin the 
tenants of the shops ? — Nothing of the kind. 

416. As regards the encroachment, your en- 
croachment is on the beach behind the power 
station — the next small bay ? — Yes. 

417. There is no kind of trade carried 011 there ? 
— None at all. 

418. It is simply in order to get water from the 
sea for the purpose of running the pumping 
station ? — Yes. and at the time we were doing that 
we spent several thousands of pounds trying to 
blast away the rocks in the bay so as to make it a 
bathing place. 

419. Under the Act you are paying the Govern- 
ment something for the encroachment on account 
of the pumping station ? — Yes. 

420. Chairman.] You are not prepared to put in 
any plans as to the proposed improvements ? — I 
have not got any. 

421. Mr. Michau.} I understand in East London 
there are refreshment rooms on the beach. Do you 
know if that is so ? — The last time I was there 
there were none directly on the beach. 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT 



Wednesday, 3rd November, 1909. 
PKESENT : 

The Secretaey for Agriculture (Chairman). 



Mr. Jagger. 
Mr. Michau. 
Mr. Eunciman. 



Mr. Yermooten. 
Mr. J. Searle. 
Mr. J. H. Marais. 



Nov. 3, 1909, 



Mr. Van der Byl, Parliamentary Agent, appeared 
on behalf of J. Lurie. 

Mr. Wahl (of the firm of Messrs. Wahl, Fuller 
and de Klerck, Parliamentary Agents) appeared on 
behalf of the Cape Marine Suburbs, Ltd. 

[In the absence of the Chairman Mr. Michau 
took the Chair.] 

Mr. Athelstan Hall Cornish-Bowden, examined. 
. rr^ r - . , 422. Acting Chair 'man. ,] You are the Surveyor- 

A.H. Cornish- ~ ^ & J 

Bowden. General ? — Y es. 

423. Now will you lead your own evidence. Will 
you tell the Committee what you know of this 
matter ? — I can give a fairly precise statement of 
all the facts which was drawn up some time ago 
by one of the officials. It was drawn up depart- 
mentally, and is written as coming from the 
Government.' 

424. Is that up to date ? — Yes. At least it brings 
us nearly up to the present. 

425. Will you read that statement ? — Yes. 

The facts of the case are as' follows : — 

When the Camp's Bay Tramway Company opened their line to 
Camp's Bay, Mr. Lurie applied (Dec. 10, 1901) for permission to 
occupy a site on Crown land near the Tram Station for refresh- 
ment rooms. This permission was granted on January 9 th, 1902, 
the site being 30 x 30 feet subject to one month's notice to quit. 
(Sir Pieter Faure being then Secretary for Agriculture.) 

Sundry other applications were received shortly after, but these 
were refused on the ground that it was undesirable to further 
encroach on the open space at this popular resort, which is already 
too restricted for the large number of visitors frequenting it. 

In August, 1902, Mr. Lurie asked for a larger piece of ground 
so as to extend his buildings, but this was refused (August 29th, 



COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION OF J. LURIE 



45 



190.2). and Mr. Lurie was informed it was the intenticn of the Mr. 
Government to withdraw his permission after he had been in A.H.Cornish- 
occupation for 12 months— this is, on January 9th, 1903. In Borden. 
December, 1902, Mr. Sauer interviewed Mr. Frost on behalf of 3 1909> 
Mr. Lurie, but Mr. Frost wrote that he was left without any 
option but to withdraw the permission (December, 27th, 1902). 
Thereafter, however (January 16th, 1903), Mr. Frost consented to 
give Mr. Lurie a second period of 12 months — to end on January 
9th, 1904 — at the same time stating : — 

" Should the Government continue to allow the site to be 
occupied for this purpose after 9th January, 1904, tbe 
right to so occupy will be advertised by public tender." 
Observing that Mr. Lurie was enlarging his buildings, the Tram- 
way Company, through Mr. Syfret, wrote to Sir Pieter Faure 
reminding him of his promise that Mr. Lurie should only have 
another 12 months and expressing a hope that this would be 
adhered to. In reply Mr. Frost informed him (March 2nd, 1903), 
that Mr. Lurie's lease would expire on January 9th, 1904, and that 
Mr. Lurie had been so informed : further, that if Government 
decided to continue the Refreshment Rooms the Right-to-occupy 
would be put up to Public Tender. On October 24th, Mr. Syfret 
again wrote asking what was intended with regard to the site and 
was informed on December 16th, that the Government did not 
propose to renew the lease, but to keep the site open for the 
general public. Mr. Sy fret's acknowledgment of this is dated 
December 1 7th. 

On January 6th, 1904, Mr. Frost wired instructions from 
Laingsburg that the right-to-occupy the site was to be put up to 
public tender, and that Lurie was meantime to remain. Tenders 
were accordingly called for on January 7th, receivable on January 
20th (14 days). 24 tenders came in ranging from £1 to £41 per 
month. The £41 tender was recommended to the Tender Board, 
but the Board hesitated about endorsing this recommendation, 
owing to doubt whether the course which has been adopted was 
quite legal. Mr. Frost, however, was satisfied that the Govern- 
ment might legally accept the highest tender. 

Meanwhile the Tramway Company had advised the Government 
that it' they persisted in the lease, they (the Company) would erect 
a fence on their boundary so as to cut off the Refreshment Rooms 
from the Main Road. In informing the successful Tenderer that 
Government was prepared to accept his tender, we told him of 
this and asked if it would affect his tender. He replied that under 
the circumstances, he must withdraw his tender. 

It was thereupon decided to fall back upon the original inten- 
tion of Mr. Frost and to keep faUh with the Tramway Company 
by entirely doing away with the Refreshment Rooms. Mr. Lurie 
was informed accordingly on February 25th that he must vacate 
by March 31st. The Tramway Company and Mr. Syfret were also 
written to to the same effect, on same date, and the Civil Com- 
missioner was instructed to see that Lurie vacated the site. 

On March 2nd, April 8th and lltli the Civil Commissioner 
reported that Lurie declined to move. 



46 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT 



Mr. Application was then made to the Supreme Court for an Order 

A.H.Cornish- 0 f Ejectment, This was granted on May 4th but Lurie was 

Bowden. allowed to remain in occupation until July 31st, 1904. 
2?- 0 v. 3, 1909. The s * te > i n extent 30 x 30 Cape Feet, was then offered for lease 
at public auction, in terms of section four, Act 26 of 1891, on the 
14th July, 1904, and was leased by Mr. Lurie, for a period of 5 
years, from the 1st August, 1904, at an annual rental of £62, sub- 
ject to the conditions set forth in Surveyor-General's Notice No. 
54 of 1904. [Copy attached.] 

In December, 1904, it was discovered that Mr. Lurie had 
encroached on Crown land beyond the area (30 x 30 feet) of the 
Refreshment Room's at Camp's Bay leased to him under section 
four of Act 26 of 1891, in pursuance of the Resolution of Parlia- 
ment, dated 27th May, 1904, by constructing a verandah, 14 feet 
wide on three sides of the refreshment site and by enclosing about 
14 feet of land on the fourth side for a kitchen and pantry. 

In addition to this, a structure of wood and iron, measuring 
about 8 x 20 feet had been erected at the back of and almost 
adjoining the Refreshment Pagoda for the accommodation of 
servants and for storage purposes. 

Mr. Lurie was at first called upon to immediately remove the 
encroachments complained of and to confine his premises to the 
area of which he was the lessee. Upon reconsideration, however, 
it was decided to grant him permission to remain in occupation of 
the land encroached upon, on payment of a monthly rental of 
£2 and subject to the same conditions and for the same period as 
set forth in his lease ; the permission to date from the 1st January, 
1905, and to expire concurrently with the lease on the 31st Julv, 
1909. 

It having been reported in May, 1905, that Lurie was carrying 
on a business of General Dealer and Newsagent, he was informed 
that unless the premises are used for refreshment rooms oeIv his 
lease would be cancelled. In view of the persistent infringements 
of the conditions of his lease the Government decided to cancel the 
lease from the 30th September, 1905. The lease was duly adver- 
tised for sale, but upon Mr. Lurie undertaking to strictly carry out 
the conditions of his lease the notice of sale was withdrawn, and 
the rescission of the cancellation of lease was authorized. Mr. Lurie 
subsequently applied to purchase the land, but it was pointed out 
by the Cape Marine Suburbs Limited, that a great injustice would 
be done to the Company if Lurie were allowed to purchase the 
land or if his lease thereof was extended. The Company was 
thereupon informed that the Government has decided not to renew 
Lurie's lease of the site when its present term expires, and Mr. 
Lurie was informed accordingly. 

On the 29th June, 1908, Messrs. van der Byl and de Yilliers 
requested that the lease may be extended for a period of 25 years, 
but they were informed that the Government has no power to 
extend the lease, and that it had no intention of again offering the 
site for lease or of permitting any occupation of the ground by 
Lurie, or any other person, after termination of the present lease, 
and that this decision must be considered as final. 



COMMITTEE OX THE PETITION OF J. LURIE 



17 



426. Have you anything else to tell the Com- Mr. 
mittee ? — No, nothing of a general nature. A, Bowden. e 

427. You are not putting in any correspondence ? Nov .~ 19( 
Your statement of facts covers everything ? — I can 

put in anything the Committee require. I have 
certain notices of leases and plans, which I think 
the Committee will require. 

428. Have you a letter of Aug. 2. 1904, written 
bv Mr. Lurie to the Secretary for Agriculture ? — 
Yes. 

429. Then there is a reply from the Under 
Secretary for Agriculture to Lurie on August 8th, 
have you that ? — Yes. 

430. Mr. Jagger.] You say that is from the Under 
Secretary for Agriculture ? — Yes. in those days the 
Under Secretary for Agriculture conducted the 
whole of these matters. 

431. "Was that letter sent to Lurie ? — Yes. 

432. Then there is a letter of August 13, 1904. 
Have you that ? — I have a letter here, which is 
substantially the same as the one produced. There 
are a few differences, such as calling the Secretary 
for Agriculture. " the minister." 

433. But it is substantially the same ? — Yes. 

434. Have vou a replv to that, written on August 
24th ?— Yes. 

435. On November 8th there is a letter written 
to Lurie. Have you that ? — Yes, I have that. 

436. And on November 18th there is another 
letter to Lurie. Have you that ? — Yes. 

437. On December 13th, you again wrote to Lurie 
drawing his attention to the encroachment ? — Yes. 

438. And on December 16th, Lurie replied to 
that ?— Yes. 

439. On Februarv 7th, you again wrote to Lurie ? 
—Yes. 

440. What did that letter contain ? — A permit to 
occupy the encroachment at £2 per month was 
given. 

441. Will you put those letters in ? — Yes. [Wit- 
ness put in correspondence.] 

442. In one of his letters Lurie says that at* the 
time he entered into the new lease the buildings 



18 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT 



Mr. occupied more than 30. feet by 30 feet. 'How did 
A " iowden " h that come about ? — He was given authority to 
_ _ — occupy 30 feet and it was thought that was all he 

Nov. 3. 1 909. i, , n ° 

would take. 

443. Had you not sufficient experience of the 
man you were dealing with, as not to do that ? — 
We should have had. At the same time I might 
say it is impossible to check all these things all 
over the Colony. We have not the officials. 

444. But surely you do not mean to say that you 
allow men all over the country to occupy land and 
just take their words for what they have ? — There 
is nobody to go round and inspect these sites. As 
we have no inspecting officer we would have to 
detach a clerk specially to investigate every re- 
ported encroachment. It was by reason of a clerk 
being specially sent that this encroachment of 
Lurie's was found out. The clerk I refer to was a 
correspondence clerk in the office of the Secretary 
for Agriculture. 

445. It seems to be a very loose system that will 
allow a man to take a certain quantity of ground, 
and then remove his beacons so as to take more 
in ? — There were no beacons at all. 

446. As far as this case goes f he evidently began 
to encroach from the very beginning? — So he savs. 

447. He admits it ?— Yes. 

448. How did he come to get this lease ? Why 
was he allowed to start there at all ? — Apparently 
no inquiries were made at all. He applied for the 
land and the application was sent over to the 
Surveyor- General for report. 

449. " By whom was the application sent ? — The 
application was sent by the Under-Secretary for 
Agriculture, and the report on it was signed by 
Mr. Templer Home— the then Surveyor- General. 
That was when there was a Lands Branch in the 
Agricultural Department. Amongst the corres- 
pondence the next thing I find is the permission 
given to Lurie. 

4£0. Was no protest raised ? Was it not pointed 
out that it was an illegal action to give this land ? 



COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION OF J. LUBJE 



49 



Nov. 3. 1909 £ 



— I cannot say that it was illegal. I may state Mr. . 
that large numbers of temporary permits are still '&$j£ 
being given for summer residences along the coast 
of the Transkei and Pondoland. There is no- 
specific provision in law for such permits being 
given. 

451. But in these cases you know they are only 
temporary people, simply putting up a hut and 
clearing away after the summer season is over ? — 
Yes, often ; but many have permanent huts, and 
the permits run on perpetually. 

452. Mr. Rimciman.'] In your statement with 
regard to the first interdict, does it appear why the 
decision to close the agreement with Mr. Lurie 
was not carried out? — The report says that on 
January 6, 1904 Mr. Frost wired instructions from 
Laingsburg that the right to occupy the, site was 
to put up to public tender, and that Lurie was 
meantime to remain. Tenders were accordingly 
called for on January 7th. Twenty-four tenders 
came in ranging from £1 to £41 per month. The 
£41 tender was recommended to the Tender Board, 
but the Board hesitated about endorsing this 
recommendation owing to doubt as to whether the 
course w T hich had been adopted was quite legal. 
Mr. Frost, however, was satisfied that the Govern- 
ment might legally accept the highest tender. 
Meanwhile the Tramway Company had advised 
the Government that if they proceeded with the 
lease they would erect a fence on their boundary, 
so as to cut off the Refreshment Rooms from the 
Main Road. In informing the successful tenderer 
that the Government was prepaxed to accept his 
tender, he was told of this and asked if it would 
affect his tender and he replied that under the 
circumstances he must withdraw his tender. 

[At this stage the Chairman entered the room 
and Mr. Michau vacated the Chair.] 

453. What happened then?— On March 2nd, 
April 8th and 11th, the Civil Commissioner 
reported that Lurie declined to move. Application 
was then made to the Supreme Court, for an order 

[A, 4—09.] Petition of J. Lurie. E 



50 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT 



*Tov. 3, 1909. 



AHCorS of e j e °tment. This was granted on May 4th, but 
'Bowden 18 Lurie was allowed to remain in occupation until 
July 31st, 1904. 

454. Mr. J 1 agger, .] But why was he allowed to 
remain ? — The site was offered for lease at public 
auction a little later. 

455. You must admit that he has bested both 
your Department and the Agricultural Depart- 
ment ? — Yes, that is so. 

456. And you admit it ? — Yes. 

457. You are candid, anyway ? — Those are the 
facts. 

458. Chairman^] Subsequent to this correspon- 
dence, did you receive further complaints that the 
conditions of lease were not being strictly adhered 
to ? — Yes, a large number of complaints were 
received. I cannot remember them all, but I see 
by my schedules that the Cape Marine Suburbs 
Ltd. wrote on May 17th, 1905, complaining about 
Lurie. Lurie wrote to the Under Secretarv for 
Agriculture in connection with the same matter 
on May 30th. 

459. Mr. Jagger.] And what was the reply to 
that letter of May 30th ? — A letter was written 
giving the lessee the right to sell local newspapers. 
On June 7th, 1905, the Cape Marine Suburbs Ltd. 
wrote that Lurie was still running his place as a 
general dealer's store. 

460. Chairman.] Is that prior to his getting the 
lease by public auction ?— No. The Under Secre- 
tary for Agriculture referred the matter to the 
police and they replied that Lurie was complying 
with the terms of his lease. 

461. Mr. Wahl (through the Chairman). After 
June 23rd further instances of contravention of 
the terms of the lease were communicated by the 
Company ? — Yes, that is so. 

462. A letter containing general statements was 
sent in on July 3rd ? — Yes. 

463. Mr. Jagger.] But are there no specific 
proofs ? — Yes, later on a letter was sent containing 
specific instances in which the lease had been con- 
travened. That letter was written on July 13. 



COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION OF J. LURIE 



51 



464. Chairman.'] Did the lessee subsequently de- 

sist from carrying on this trade ? — As you may A, BowdeT 
remember, the Government gave him notice, and ^ — 19( 
the lease was cancelled on account of these in- ov * ' 
fringements of the conditions. After that, Messrs. 
van der Byl & de Yilliers undertook that Mr. 
Lurie would sell nothing but bona fide refresh- 
ments, and would stop this general dealer's traffic, . 
and in view of that undertaking the cancellation 
was rescinded. 

465. When was that? Was that in 1905 ?— 
Colonel Crew's instructions on the matter are 
endorsed in a letter written by Mr van der Byl on 
September 11, 1905. That letter stated that Mr. 
Lurie was prepared to accept the conditions laid 
down and that he would be entitled te serve 
parties pic-nicing, etc., with bona fide refresh- 
ments. On November 11th, 1905, the Colonial 
Secretary wrote that he would not cancel the 
lease. 

466. And that is practically the last, with the 
exception of the subsequent letter asking for a 
renewal of the lease for 25 years ? — Yes. 

467. Mr. Jagger.] Should the Government not 
have called for tenders ? — The Government was 
driven into a corner by Mr. Lurie. He would 
encroach, and it was a question of either taking 
down the encroachments or covering them with a 
permit. 

468. Mr. Wahl (through the Chairman.)] The 
notice of cancellation was to expire on September 
15th. but in the interval the advertisement for the 
re-sale of the site and the conditions were duly 
inserted in the newspapers. Had that advertise- 
ment not the effect of giving 70 roods, 36 square 
feet instead of 6 roods ? — No. The advertisement 
for the re-sale quoted 115 x 87 5 Cape feet as the 
dimensions of the site to be leased, but that did 
not affect his former lease : he still occupied under 
the old lease. 

469. But there was no warrant for the extension? 
—No. 

E 2 



52 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT 



h c r ' i h And the GoYernment had no power to give 

'Bowden. 8 " it ? — I am not prepared to say what power the 
ov 3~i909 Government nac ^- 

ov * ' ' 471. In the regulations it says that when such 
land is to be let on lease it shall be let at public 
auction to the highest bidder. Is that not the 
only power the Government has. There is no law 
empowering the Government to give this 70 roods 
63 square feet ? — No. 

472. Mr. Jagger.~] Is it illegal to have done so ? 
— I am not going to say that it is. It is a thing 
that is at present being done in the country as 
I mentioned before. 

473. Mr. Michau.] You say that the Government 
was driven into a corner by Mr. Lurie. It appears 
to me that the Government was more to blame 
than he was for such a state of things? — It was 
through allowing this encroachment to take place 
that the Government found itself in difficulties. 

474. Yes, and cancelling the lease and then giving 
it back ? — I admit that that was extraordinary. 

475. Advertising the lease and then illegally 
giving if is also most extraordinary ? — I do not 
admit that. Both leases are under the Act and 
quite legal. The lease given to Mr. Lurie. and 
which expired the other day is absolutely legal. 
The only thing that is questionable is as to whether 
the right to occupy the encroachment is legal or 
not. 

476. Mr. Runciman.] You say permits are being 
given now. Are those permits given to people to 
enable them to compete in business with other 
people in the vicinity ? — No. Mr. Lurie has taught 
us a lesson and we are very careful now. 

477. But you will admit that the Government 
gave a large tract of land to the contractors at 
Simon's Bay ? — I think that was done. 

478. Is it not the practice of the Government to 
grant land to people to enable them to compete in 
business with others? — I am not prepared to make 
any statement on that. The Government's action 
may be covered by Act of Parliament. ' There is a 



COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION OE J. LURIE 



53 



clause in the Crown Lands Disposal Act. 1887, Mr. 
which allows the Government to give grants or a, b^c££! 
reserves of land for defence purposes. — 

479. But the instance I mention was not for ~ ov * ; 
defence purposes. The Government gave Sir John 
Jackson a grant of land at Simon's Bay. and that 
was immediately used to erect stores and board- 
ing-houses on. which came into competition with 

the local people ? — I had no notice of this matter 
coming up this morning or I would have looked 
up all the information on it. 

480. Mr. Michau7\ You do not propose compen- 
sating Lurie ? — We propose to adhere to the terms 
of the lease, which says that no compensation 
shall be payable. 

481. You are aware that he has put up a fairly 
substantial building there ? — Yes. 

482. If you are not going to compensate him, 
what do you propose doing with the buildings 
after he has left ? — He has a right to take the 
buildings away with him. and we propose to give 
him every opportunity to do so. He can either 
sell it or erect it on private ground. 

483. Would it not be a pity to pull down a build- 
ing of that sort which is of so much advantage to 
the public. Even the Secretary of the Tramway 
Company told us it was a great advantage to the 
public ? — If you ask my candid opinion on the 
question I will tell you that I think it was a very 
great pity that the Government took advantage of 
its ownership of this small piece of ground between 
the road and the sea to allow the erection of this 
building. 

484. Mr. Van der Byl (through the Chairman).] 
Before he put up this encroachment did he not 
inform the Department of his intention to do so, 
and did the Department say he was not to do so '? 
—We wrote to him intimating that any improve- 
ments he might put up would be done at his own 
risk. 

485. Mr. Jagger.] We understood from you that 
before ever it came to vour notice that these en- 



54 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT 



Mr. croachments were up that vou sent down a clerk ? 

— In December, 1901, it was reported to us that 
— these encroachments had been put up, and then 

Nov. 3, 1909. we sent dQwn a clerk 

486. And when did he write to you ? — In 
August. 1904. 

487. Chairman.] Are there any other points or 
documents not put before the Committee during 
your examination which you think are material 
to the inquiry and which you would like to put 
in, or is there any additional statement you would 
like to make ? — I will read a report on the matter 
which I drew up for the information of the late 
Prime Minister, Dr. Jameson. It is a clear state- 
ment of my opinion. I will send a copy of this 
Eeport to the Committee at a later date. 

488. Mr. Van der Byl (through the Chairman).] 
If Lurie was not to be considered, why was the 
advertisement of the site put in ? — That was 
Colonel Crewe's * instruction. The lease of the 
ground was to be sold by public auction and there 
was no mention of compensation to Mr. Lurie. 

489. If it was so hard on the Tramway Company, 
why did the Government want to perpetuate the 
lease ? — I cannot say. 

490. Mr. Jagg er. 2 Would not the conditions be 
more stringent ? — I think they were the same. I 
fancy Mr. Yan der Byl represented to Colonel 
Crewe that a pagoda was wanted there by the 
public. 

491. You think that influence as usual was 
brought to bear on the Minister ? — I think so. 
There is no correspondence here that will enable 
me to give the reply that was given to Mr. Yan 
der Byl. 

492. " Chairman.] When the end of the five years' 
term was approaching, what then happened ? — A 
letter was addressed by me to Mr. Lurie on July 
7th, 1909, drawing his attention to the fact that 
the lease was expiring. 

493. So he was reminded that his term of 
occupancy would expire on that date ? — Yes. 



COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION OF J. LURIE 



55 



494. And then ? — A letter was received from Mr. 
Messrs. Tan der Byl and De Yilliers, addressed to A *f 0 ^ 
the Secretary for Agriculture, requesting the ^ — 
Government to give Lurie an extension of his ov * ' 
lease on reasonable terms, stating further that 
their client had put all his money into the place, 

and that if he was compelled to leave, he would 
be a ruined man. 

495. Mr. Jagger.] And what was the reply to 
that ? — A reply was sent on July 20th allowing 
the lease to be renewed from month to month, 
pending the meeting of Parliament. As I told 
you before when discussing this thing, the policy 
of the Government has been that these strips of 
land, so often to be found along the coast of the 
Colony between a private property and the sea. 
should not be* leased or occupied without the 
sanction of the owner of the property, as it has 
been found that the lessees or occupiers are depen- 
dent on the farms for water, wood and even for 
grazing for their stock. They also encroach on 
the place in other ways. It has been laid down 
by the Government that in future the permission 
of the owner should be sought, and if they object 
the owners should be given a chance to lease it 
themselves. They should have the first oppor- 
tunity to lease it from the Government to do 
what they like w^ith it. This has some bearing on 
Mr. Lurie's lease, so I thought I would like to let 
the Committee know what the policy of the 
Government has been. 

496. Chairman.] That is partlv the outcome of 
the difficulty ?— Yes. 



56 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFOEE THE SELECT 
COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION OF J. LURIE 



Tuesday, 23rd November, 1909. 



PEE SENT : 

The Seceetaey foe Ageicultuee (Chairman), 

Mr. J. Seaiie. 



Mr. Jagger. 
Mr. Vermooten. 
Mr. Michau. 
Mr. Alexander 



Mr. Greer. 
Mr. Kunciman. 
Mr. J. H. Marais. 



Mr. van der Byi, Parliamentary Agent, appeared 
on behalf of J. Lurie. 

Mr. Wahl (of the firm of Messrs. Wahl, Fuller 
and de Klerk, Parliamentary Agents) appeared on 
behalf of the Cape Marine Suburbs, Limited. 

« 

Mr. Robert Paul Loftus Wahl, examined. 

BPLWahi 497. Chairman.] You are a, Parliamentary 
■ -1 ' Agent appearing before this Committee on behalf 
Noy.23,i909. of the Cape Marine Suburbs, Limited ?— Yes. 

498. In case the Government decides not to lease 
portion of the foreshore at Camp's Bay for the 
purposes of refreshment rooms, will the Cape 
Marine Suburbs, Limited, be prepared to offer land 
opposite the Pagoda, where refreshment rooms 
could be erected for the convenience of the public ? 
— I cannot give a definite reply to that question 
without consulting the Directors of the Company. 



APPENDIX. 



[A] 

PETITION OF J. LURIE. 

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House 
of Assembly of the Cape of Good Hope in Parliament 
assembled. 

The Petition of the Undersigned J acob Lurie, of Camp's Bay. • 
Respectfully Sheweth • 

1. That Your Petitioner was at Camp's Bay in the year 1901 
and saw the need of a Refreshment Room in that locality. He 
thereupon made inquiries and ascertained that all the ground 
there, with the exception of the Crown Land, belonged to the 
Camp's Bay Tramway Company. 

2. That Your Petitioner personally approached the Tramway 
Company with the request that they would sell or lease him a 
portion of their property for the purpose of conducting a Re- 
freshment Room thereon, but they declined to do either. 

3. That Your Petitioner then applied to Government for 
ground and on the 9th January, 1902, Your Petitioner was 
granted permission by Government to occupy a site at Camp's 
Bay and to use same for the purpose of Refreshment Rooms. 
In view of the fact that Your Petitioner was supplying a public 
want no rent was asked for at the time for such use of the land. 

4. Your Petitioner was given to understand that as long as he 
conducted his business in a proper manner he would not be 
interfered with and in order to cope with the wants of the 
public Your Petitioner then spent a considerable sum of money 
in erecting suitable premises on the site. 

5. Shortly thereafter the Tramway Company opened Refresh- 
ment Rooms in opposition to Your Petitioner and have since 
strenuously made every endeavour to have Your Petitioner 
ejected from the premises occupied by him, and he has from time 
to time received notice cancelling his lease, which notices have 
been withdrawn upon proper representations being made by Your 
Petitioner. 

6. In February, 1904, Your Petitioner was notified that his 
buildings had to be removed forthwith and as Your Petitioner 
could not comply therewith Government applied for an Order of 
Court to eject Your Petitioner. The Court while stating that 
they could see no reason for the attitude of the Government, 
were compelled to grant the Order prayed for, but stayed 
execution to enable Your Petitioner to, if possible, come to some 
arrangement with Government. 



ii 



APPENDIX TO REPORT OF THE SELECT 



7. Your Petitioner thereupon presented a petition to this 
Honourable House placing the facts of his case before this 
Honourable House and praying for relief. As a result of such 
petition the lease of the premises was publicly advertised, the 
purchaser of the lease to pay Your Petitioner the value of the 
existing buildings. 

8. Your Petitioner was the highest bidder and since the 1st 
August, 1904, has paid the Government the sum of £62 per 
annum. 

9. Your Petitioner thereupon re-built the Refreshment Rooms 
and expended thereon the sum of £1,500 obtaining from Govern- 
ment a little extra ground for the purpose of a stoep for which 
your Petitioner pays an additional sum of £24 per annum. In 
five years your Petitioner has jjaid Government the sum of £430 
in rent which is many times more than the actual value of the 
land which is occupied by him. 

10. Your Petitioner in addition to expending the sum of 
£1,500 on the building erected on the site lias devoted all his 
time and energies to the business carried on there, which business 
has been carried on to the satisfaction of the public and of every- 
one with the exception of his rival caterers the Tramway 
Company. 

11. That Your Petitioner's lease expired on the 31st July last, 
and prior thereto Your Petitioner applied to Government for 
extension of his lease upon reasonable terms. This was refused 
but ultimately Your Petitioner was allowed to remain as a 
monthly tenant until such time as he would be able to submit 
his case to this Honourable House for consideration. 

12. That the whole of Your Petitioner's money has been sunk 
in the building erected on the site which building if removed will 
be of no value to him ant! if he is ejected from the premises 
Your Petitioner and those dependent on him will be ruined and 
without any means of livelihood. 

13. That Your Petitioner is desirous of obtaining a lease of 
the site occupied by him for a longer period of years on reason- 
able terms, and Your Petitioner is desirous that a clause should 
be inserted that the lease should only terminate prior to the time 
fixed should Government desire to sell the land or require same 
for public purposes. 

14. Your Petitioner respectfully submits that the granting of 
his prayer will not only be fair and just to himself, but in the 
financial interests of the Government and for the convenience of 
the general public. 

15. That Your Petitioner is desirous of being heard personally 
and by his Parliamentary Agent in support of his petition. 
Wherefore 

Your Petitioner prays that your Honourable House will be 
pleased to take his case into favourable consideration, and grant 
him such relief as it may deem fit. 

And Your Petitioner as in duty bound will ever pray. 

J. LURIE. 



TITION OF J. LUP.IE 



iii 



PETITION OF THE CAPE MAJRIXE SUBURBS. 
LIMITED. 

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House 
of Assembly of the Cape of Good Hope in Parliament 
Assembled. 

The Petition of the Under-L:. I 1 i i Edward D'Arcy Orpen r 
Ac ting Chairman of the Cape Marine Suburbs, Limited. 

Respectfully Sheweih : 

I. That the h .v > Marine Suburbs, Limited, is a Company 
duly incorporated in this Colony on the 16th day of May, 1899, 
and having its registered office in Cape To^n. 

Your Petitioner is the Acting Chairman of the Company and 
has been authorised and instructed to address this Petition to 
this Honourable House. 

II. That your Petitioner s Company is very largely interested 
in Camp's Bay and is by far the largest landowner there, and it 
is of great importance to the Company and other landowners 
there, who hare bought and paid for their ground, that the 
prayer of the Petition presented to this Honourable* House, on 
the 7th day of October, 1909, by Jacob Lurie, of Camp s Bay, 
be not granted. 

III. That the said Petition contains numerous statements 
which are misleading and others which are actually false and, in 
justice to his Company, your Petitioner craves leave to refute 
the incorrect and misleading statements made by the sai i Lurie. 

IV. That the allegations in the first paragraph of the said 
Petition are partly misleading and partly untrue. The said 
Lurie could not have made inquiries as stated by him, or he 
would at once have ascertained that the Camp's Bay Tramway 
Company, Limited, neither owned, nor occupied or controlled^ 
any land at Camp's Bay beyond the enclosed site of the Power 
Station and the ground actually used for purely tramway 
purposes. 

V. The second paragraph of the said Petition is wholly 
untrue. The said Lurie, if he had ever approached the Tram- 
way Company as alleged by him, would at once have learnt that 
that Company had no ground to sell or lease for the purpose 
stated or for any other purpose. If he had approached anyone 
connected with the Tramway Company or searched at the Land 
Registry in the Deeds Office he would have been referred to Your 
Petitioner's Company as the owner's of the land : he never did 
apply to Your Petitioner's Company and met with no such 
refusal as stated by him. The said Lurie has had opportunities 
to buy such land by public auction or private treaty, as herein- 
after set forth, but ha3 never availed himself of any such 
opportunity. 



iv 



APPENDIX TO REPORT OF THE SELECT 



VI. The Cape Marine Suburbs, Limited, was formed for the 
express purpose of acquiring land at Camp's Bay and develop- 
ing Camp's Bay as a Watering Place and Marine Suburb of 
Cape Town ; to subdivide the land and sell same in suitable 
building plots by public auction and otherwise, and amongst 
other objects to build and manage refreshment rooms and other 
places for the accommodation and entertainment of the Public. 

VII. Your Petitioner's Company purchased and acquired 
practically all the land at Camp's Bay except the Camp's Bay 
Hotel property, and in many cases paid heavy prices for land 
adjoining and bounded by the beach and foreshore, as such land 
is naturally by far the most valuable at a seaside resort. No 
warning of any kind was held out by the Government that an 
extremely unusual and extraordinary course would be adopted at 
Camp's Bay, and part of the actual foreshore be bestowed upon 
or handed over by lease or otherwise to an individual to the loss 
and damage of the owners of property adjacent to and bounded 
by such foreshore. If by any foresight the Company could have 
foreseen that in the case of Camp's Bay a new practice would be 
introduced and encroachment and building on the foreshore per- 
mitted Yoiu.' Petitioner's Company would not have paid prices 
based on the assumption that the property bought by them was 
bounded by the public foreshore and the sea. 

VIII. In order to develop Camp's Bay and to increase the 
value of the land they proposed to sub-divide and sell, the share- 
holder in Your Petitioner's Company subsequently invested 
very large sums in another Company, to wit the Camp's Bay 
Tramway Company, Limited, which was incorporated about a 
year after Your Petitioner's Company and was formed for the 
purpose of building and working Electric Tramways from Cape 
Town and from Sea Point to Camp's Bay. In this manner, and 
in buying the land to secure a sea front and in providing 
facilities and attractions for the public, the property owners 
represented by Your Petitioner have spent and invested over 
£300,000 sterling, and are large taxpayers. 

Your Petitioner respectfully submits that they are entitled to 
protection and fair opportunities to trade and earn a profit on 
their outlay, and that the actions of the said Lurie and the 
departure from the ordinary course in dealing with the Camp's 
Bay Beach, hereinafter set forth, constitute a grave interference 
with trade and with the rights of the public, and deprives them, 
as the owners of ground bounded by the foreshore of all 
guarantee or certainty that the public beach will not further be 
cut up and built upon, nor can they sell their land with any 
assurance that buyers of plots set aside for shops and trading 
purposes will not have to compete with a trader or traders 
enjoying unusual advantages rendering it impossible for an 
ordinary ratepayer to invest money in ground in that neighbour- 
hood. 



COMMITTEE OX THE PETITION OF J. LUETE 



T 



IX. With regard to the third paragraph of the Petition of the 
said Lurie Your Petitioner craves leave to point out that on the 
very day that Lurie was granted permission by Government 
temporarily to occupy a small site for a refreshment booth on the 
foreshore, a handsome and picturesque Pagoda, which had been 
erected by Your Petitioner's Company as part of the scheme for 
the development of Camp's Bay, was opened and ail kinds of 
refreshment supplied by the said Lurie were provided at very 
low prices, and the " public want,'" referred to in such, paragraph 
was fully and legitimately met by a competent and experienced 
caterer. This Pagoda was, however, erected on ground which 
had been bought and paid for and no building or obstruction 
intervened between it and the sea shore until the said Lurie 
erected a refreshment booth on the beach. 

X. With reference to the fourth paragraph of the said Petition 
Your Petitioner says that same is misleading and incorrect. 
The terms on which the said Lurie was allowed to occupy the 
site in question were not at all as stated by him. 

XL The opening statement of the said Lurie in the fifth 
paragraph is absolutely untrue. Your Petitioner respectfully 
begs to refer this Honourable House to the ninth paragraph of 
this Petition. The Refreshment rooms or Pagoda, wrongly 
described by the said Lurie as opened by the Tramway Company 
in opposition to him, were actually opened by Your Petitioner's 
Company on the 9th January, 1902, the date on which Lurie was 
first granted permission to occupy the site on the beach. As regards 
the other allegations in the said paragraph no notices have ever been 
given to the said Lurie to the knowledge of your Petitioner's 
Company except owing to the said Lurie breaking the condi- 
tions on which he was permitted to occupy the site in question. 
Your Petitioner begs the leave of this Honourable House to deny 
that the representations made by the said Lurie are correctly 
described as "proper." 

XII. Your Petitioner's Company applied to the Government 
on the Ilth February, 1902, in terms of section fourteen of Act 
15 of 1887 for the Crown Land contiguous to their property, but 
the application was refused, the Surveyor-General replying 
that he held instructions from the Government to guard against 
the sale of any foreshore along the Coast, especially at bays and 
coves. 

It was about this time that Lurie who did not own any ground 
at Camp's Bay w&s allowed to take possession of part of the 
foreshore and to start business in opposition to Your Petitioner's 
Company and all others who owned, bought, or leased ground or 
buildings in the ordinary course. 

XIII. Your Petitioner's Company protested against the 
action of the Government and pointed out how they were handi- 
capped by the preference thus shown -to Lurie. The Govern- 
ment assured them in reply that the foreshore site had been only 



APPENDIX TO REPORT OF THE SELECT 



temporarily granted to Lurie to meet the requirements of the 
public at that time and that his tenancy would soon cease. 

Belying on the assurance of the Government, Your Peti- 
tioner's Company proceeded to spend about £26,000 on a large 
and handsome restaurant, dining rooms and hall, known as 
Camp's Bay Pavilion, in the immediate neighbourhood, and 
further erected large swimming baths, with tea-rooms and shops 
attached. 

XIV. On the 5th March, 1903, Your Petitioner's Company 
sold by public auction a dumber of residential and shop sites, and 
it was equally open to Lurie with the rest of the public to have 
bought ground at such sale. He, however, did not avail himself 
of the opportunity 

XV. The said Lurie remained in occupation of the site on the 
foreshore although his tenancy was legally terminated. In 
January, 1904, tenders were advertised for by Government for 
the lease for one year of the refreshment stall site, being the site 
occupied by the said Lurie, but, although to the knowledge of 
the Company at least one tender not by Lurie was sent in, no 
explanation was given, and Lurie continued to occupy the site 
and practically defied the Government ; at length, as stated in 
the sixth paragraph of his Petition, the Government applied to 
the Supreme Court for an order to eject him, and he was ordered 
to give up possession. 

The said Lurie appeared in Court and made ex parte state- 
ments which, as Your Petitioner's Company were not parties to 
the suit and Counsel for the Government was not instructed with 
regard thereto, could not be refuted. 

XVI. With regard to the seventh paragraph of the said 
Petition Your Petitioner begs leave to point out that his 
Company was afforded no opportunity to place the true facts 
before this Honourable House and the one-sided statements of 
the said Lurie were accepted at the time as correct. 

XVII. The said Lurie had been allowed to occupy the site on 
the express and definite condition that he should not be entitled 
to any compensation at the termination of his tenure but 
consequent upon the representations made by him the lease was 
again advertised, this time on terms which made it impossible for 
anyone to compete with Lurie. 

Notwithstanding that .Lurie had only leave to occupy a site 
30 feet by 30 feet, without any right to compensation, as above 
set forth, he had encroached on the beach Beyond the site and 
the conditions compelled any would-be buyer to pay Lurie £450 
compensation and restricted the area to be leased to 30 feet by 
30 feet. 

Lurie therefore obtained the lease at £62 per annum. 

XVIII. The new Lease from the 1st August, 1904, was 
acquired by Lurie with the full knowledge that he would not be 
entitled to any compensation at the end of his five years' lease, 



COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION OF J. LURIE 



but he without delay commenced to violate the conditions of his 
lease. Instead of obtaining from Government " a little extra 
ground for the purpose of a stoep " as set forth in paragraph 9 of 
his Petition, Lurie encroached largely on the foreshore, and 
appropriated more than ten ( 10) times the area which had been put 
up to public competition and now occupies, instead of 900 square 
feet over 10,100 square feet of the public beach. His rent how- 
ever has been very slightly increased. 

XIX. The other conditions imposed were treated with like 
disregard by Lurie. ■ 

In addition to the sale of refreshments he sold groceries and 
general merchandise and newspapers, and at length, after Your 
Petitioner's Company had tendered proof of the contraventions of 
his lease by Lurie, Government gave him notice that his lease was 
cancelled as from the 16th September, 1905. 

XX. The Government thereupon inserted a number of adver- 
tisements in the public press advertising the sale of the lease, on 
conditions to which Your Petitioner specially craves leave to 
refer this Honourable House, and Your Petitioner and others 
who had bought ground, or leased shops and tea rooms, and other 
caterers for public wants, thought that fair trade would at last 
become possible at Camp's Bay. 

What representations were made by Lurie to Government is 
not known to Your Petitioner or his Company and no oppor- 
tunity has ever been afforded to put forwarded and prove the 
true facts, but on the day before that fixed in the advertisements 
the sale notice was withdrawn and the sale cancelled. Lurie 
was allowed to remain in possession of the large area he 
had taken possession of, but Your Petitioner's Company cannot 
ascertain whether the conditions advertised and on which the 
public were asked to compete for the site were imposed on Lurie. 
As far as can be ascertained the cancellation of the lease of the 
6 square roods and 36 square feet was rescinded and he was 
allowed to continue for the full period of the lease to hold 70 
square roods and 29 square feet, without the additional 63 square 
roods 137 square feet ever being submitted to public competition 
as required by Law. 

XXI. The lease finally terminated on the 31st July last, but 
again Lurie remained in possession of this large portion of the 
foreshore without any legal right and continued to compete with 
other traders and caterers and still continues to do so. 

The Lessee of the magnificent Pavilion built by Your 
Petitioner's Company had to give up the unequal struggle and 
on the 31st August last the property was thrown on the Com- 
pany's hands. The Pagoda abovementioned has for some years 
past been disused and without a tenant. Xo shop has been built 
on either of the sites specially set aside and sold by public 
miction in 1904 for shops. Quite recently the tenant of the tea 
rooms in the Swimming Baths has been compelled to give up 



viii 



APPENDIX TO REPORT OF THE SELECT 



business. The Company is unable to lind fresh tenants bold 
enough to invite ruin by trying to compete against a competitor 
who holds the advantages Lurie has for years obtained and had 
extended. 

The sale of ground is made more difficult than even the 
general depression warrants, and generally the development of 
Camp's Bay as a Marine Resort is retarded, as the expenditure 
of capital only results in increasing Lurie's profits and helping v 
him to take up more and more of the foreshore and to enlarge 
his buildings on the public beach. 

XXII. Your Petitioner respectfully submits that it is not 
just towards Your Petitioner's Company and other property 
owner's at Camp's Bay, nor to present or intending caterers and 
shopkeepers that the prayer of the Petition of the said Lurie 
should be granted, and further respectfully submits that it is 
against public policy that any portion of the foreshore should be 
granted or leased to the detriment of properties abutting on such 
foreshore. 

XXII I. That Your Petitioner's Company is desirous of being 
heard by its Officials and by its Parliamentary Agent or Counsel 
in support of this Petition and in opposition to the said Petition 
of Jacob Lurie. 

Wherefore Your Petitioner prays that Your Honourable House 
will be pleased to allow the Cape Marine Suburbs, Limited, to 
be heard by its Officials and by its Parliamentary Agent before 
the Select Committee appointed by Your Honourable House on 
the 7th October, 1909, to consider the Petition of Jacob Lurie 
presented to Your Honourable House on the 5th instant, and that 
Your Petitioner's Company may be granted such relief as to 
Your Honourable House may seem fit. 

And Your Petitioner as in duty bound will ever pray. 

Cape Town, this 12th day of October, 1909. 

GERALD ORPEN. 



[C] 

PETITION IN SUPPORT OF PETITION 
OF J. LURIE. 

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of 
Assembly of the Cape of Good Hope in Parliament 

assembled. 

The Petition of the undersigned residents of Camps Bay, Cape 
Town and the neighbourhood, and visitors to Camps Bay, 

RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH : 

1. That your Petitioners are informed that the lease of 
Government ground at Camps Bay, upon which Jacob Lurie 
built the Beach Pagoda, has expired, and that the said Lurie has 



COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION OF J. LURIE 



ix 



petitioned this Honourable House for a further lease of the site 
occupied by him for a longer period of years on reasonable terms. 

2. That your Petitioners verily believe that the said Lurie has 
always conducted his business in fit and proper manner, and to 
the satisfaction of the Public. 

; 3. That your Petitioners are strongly of opinion that the rights 
of the public are in no way hindered by the erection of the said 
liurie's Kefreshment Rooms in their present position, but that on 
the other hand the said Refreshment Rooms are of great con- 
venience to the public, and that it is in the interests of yoiu* 
Petitioners, and the public generally, that the said Refreshment 
Rooms should continue to remain open. 

Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that your Honourable 
House will be pleased to take the question of granting permission 
for the continuance of Public Refreshment Rooms at the Beach 
Pagoda, at Camps, Bay into favourable consideration, and grant 
such relief as it may deem fit. 

And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. 

S. Y. De Villiers, 

And 1,011 others. 



[D.] 

CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING LEASE OF THE 
PAVILION AT CAMPS BAY. 

Bureau Street, 
Cape Town, 

23rd November, 1909 

Messrs. Van der Byl and De Villiers, 
Cape Town. 

Dear Sirs, — Mr. Wahl has debated with the Chairman and 
Secretary the suggested courses, and we find that it is practically 
impossible for the local Board to cut up the best ground of the 
Pavilion as the head office would certainly not give the necessary 
authority, so to spoil the property. 

The other scheme, however, has been carefully considered, and 
although in the opinion of the Cape Town Directors the sacrifice 
is a very serious one, they are prepared to recommend to the 
London Board a lease of the Pavilion on the following terms : — 

First. — The picnic ground placed at the disposal of the public 
by the Company will not be included, but the premises leased will 
comprise the large Pavilion and Concert Hall with the whole 
grounds properly belonging to it as fenced, and to prevent mis- 
take we must point out that the switchback railway, etc., is 
beyond this fence and does not form part of the Pavilion property. 
The old pagoda, however, does fall within the grounds. 

[A. 4— '09.] Petition of J. Lurie. F 



X 



APPENDIX TO REPORT OF THE SELECT 



Second. — The minimum rent that the Company could take from 
Mr. Lurie would be £50 per month for the six summer months 
and £30 for the six winter months. This would yield barely 1} 
per cent, interest on the actual cost of the Pavilion and ground so 
leased, but as the Company has to pay taxes, insurance and main- 
tain the outside of the building in proper repair, the total nett 
interest would be much less than 1 per cent. 

Third. — The usual conditions would, of course, attach to the 
lease, the Company having to keep the outside and the Lessee 
the inside of the Pavilion and Concert Hall in the same good 
repair as at present. The tenant would also have to keep the 
grounds in proper order and allow the same facilities to the Public 
as are allowed at present. He would also have to undertake that 
the interests of the public are fully guarded and especially that 
his tariff of charges for refreshments of all kinds shall not exceed - 
the present tariff in force at the Pavilion. 

Fourth. — The term of the lease to be for four (4) years, and 
the non-payment of rent within a reasonable period after the 
beginning of each month, such period to be fixed in the lease, to 
entitle the Company to cancel the lease. 

The local Directors are prepared to ask the London Board for 
authority to grant a lease as above, in order to put an end to the 
present position, which is so seriously handicapping the develop- 
ment of Camp's Bay, but you must understand that the sanction 
of the London Board must be obtained by cable before the lease 
can be definitely agreed upon. 

If, however, we come to terms on these lines, we take it that 
the Committee would agree to the necessary extension of time to 
enable us to communicate with London by cable, and receive a 
definite reply. 

Awaiting the favour of an early reply, 

Yours faithfully, 

WAHL, FULLER & DE KLERK. 

Cape Town, 

24th November, 1909. 

Messrs. Wahl, Fuller & de Klerk, 
Attorneys, Cape Town. 
Dear Sirs, — We are in receipt of your letter of yesterday's 
date. 

We regret that your clients have not seen their way clear to 
offer Mr. Lurie a piece of ground in the immediate neighbourhood 
of the site at present occupied by him. 

We cannot understand your remarks re cutting up the best 
ground of the Pavilion, as the site suggested is some considerable 
distance from the Pavilion and would be a bit of ground adjoining 
the Road only 150 feet by 150 feet, so that it would not materially 
interfere with the Pavilion grounds. 



COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION OF J. LURIE xi 

With regard to the proposed lease of the Pavilion which your 
clients are prepared to recommend to the London Board, we 
regret that the terms you suggest are impossible ones. In the 
first place, while curtailing the ground and buildings previously 
leased by your clients, they ask from him rent several times as 
much as previously obtained by them and more than he would be 
able to pay. If he accepted your client's terms he will, at the 
end of four years, find that he has been working the whole time 
for your clients and is himself homeless. 

He considers that £300 a year is in the present times too much 
rent, but he is prepared to pay that rent provided he has a lease 
for ten years of the Pavilion, including the old Homestead and 
ground as previously leased with furniture, fittings, etc. Light 
and water your Company has and will, we take it, supply as 
heretofore. With regard to your tariff of charges, we do not 
know what those are, but our client would not charge more than 
he does at present. He would also in no way place any obstacles 
in the way of the public picnicing as heretofore. 

In the event of a lease being entered into, your client will of 
course not allow Refreshment Places to be erected on the Beach 
side of the road in the neighbourhood of the Pavilion. 

With regard to your statement that the rent asked by your 
client only shews a return of 1^ per cent, on the actual cost of 
the Pavilion and ground, we must point out that this is not a fair 
base upon which to go. The money spent was unnecessarily 
spent, the only basis a tenant can look to is a concern's earning 
capacity. A place costing a few thouaand pounds would have 
met the requirements and take as much money as the present 
elaborate building. 

As the representatives of your Company here appear to have 
no pow r er, and have to refer everything to a Board in London, 
who have not the same advantage of local knowledge, we may 
add that in order that you may write full particulars to England, 
our client is prepared, in the event of Parliament granting him 
the extension of his lease prayed for, to, subject to the approval of 
the Government, agree to a cancellation of such extended lease, 
provided that within three months hereof your client agree to 
either of the following : — 

(a) Selling the ground already referred to herein for £200, it 
being, of course, understood that as your clients object to 
Refreshment Rooms on the Beach side of the road they 
will then themselves not erect or allow to be erected Re- 
freshment Rooms there within a reasonable distance of 
Mr. Lurie. Further, that you do not block or render 
difficult the access from the ground bought by our client 
to the Beach, and give him the same facilities for water 
and light as other purchasers of ground. Also that trams 
will be allowed to stop at his place to take up and set 
down passengers, i 



Xii APPENDIX TO REPORT OE THE SELECT 

COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION OF J. LTJRIE 

(b.) To grant him a ten years' lease of the Pavilion and Grounds 
on the lines laid down in this letter. 

Yours faithfully, 

< Signed) VAN DER BYL & DE VILLIERS. 

Bureau Street, 

Cape Town, 

24th November, 1909. 

Messrs. Van der Byl and De Villiers, 
Cape Town. 

Dear Sirs, — We beg to remind you that in addition to the 
offer made in our letter of yesterday afternoon, our clients are 
prepared, strictly without prejudice, and without in any way 
abandoning their opinion as to the injustice of the express terms 
of Mr. Lurie's lease, as regards his not being entitled to any com- 
pensation, being ignored, to pay Mr. Lurie ex gratio the sum of 
£200 sterling, and to acquiesce in the Government allowing him 
to stay on the site until the 31st March, 1910, the end of the 
Summer months. We wish to make it quite clear that our 
clients only make this further sacrifice to' meet as far as is at all 
possible the wishes of the Committee, and not because they feel 
that Mr. Lurie is entitled in equity or common fairness to this 
further concession. 

Yours faithfully, 



WAHL, FULLER & DE KLERK. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: June 2003 

PreservationTechnologie.' 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATIO 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



